Risk Factors associated with Dental Implant Failure: A Study of 302 Implants placed in a Regional Center

Abstract

Aim:The aim of this research is to determine which risk factors are associated with dental implant failure and survival. Materials and methods:Data pertaining to patients who received one or more dental implants from 2011 to 2013 in a regional center were retrospectively reviewed. This included a total of 302 Biomet 3i NanoTite Tapered Certain implants placed in 177 patients. All patients were followed up until the end of 2015.Results: This study found an overall success rate of 95%. Statistically significant factors that were found to affect implant survival were implant length, surgical technique, and presence of diabetes mellitus DM. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), implant site, smoking, and variable operators were not found to have any significant implant on implant survival. Conclusion:This study has demonstrated that the incidence of implant failure and its complications is affected by a number of important factors that clinicians should consider when assessing patients. A follow-up study with a larger sample size, longer follow-up period, and details of the type of prosthetic rehabilitation would be beneficial in producing more definitive conclusions which may improve clinical practice.Clinical significance: Dental implants play an important role in modern-day dental rehabilitation. It is vital that clinicians understand the impact of variable risk factors on implant survival. This study will add to the growing literature on the subject.

Risk factors in bone augmentation procedures

“…Similar risk factors exist for implant surgery and bone‐grafting procedures . However, bone‐graft healing and maturation are significantly more complex because of challenges associated with the biology of hard and soft tissue healing, complexity of surgical techniques, remodeling and vascularity between the donor and host bone, and the variety of grafting materials available.…”

Modifications of Dental Implant Surfaces at the Micro- and Nano-Level for Enhanced Osseointegration

“…Recently, a thin calcium-phosphorus coating layer has been achieved and investigated using various coating techniques [76,93,101,103]. Compared to the plasma sprayed HA coating, however, the other calcium-phosphorus coatings are considered to lack long term clinical results [104,105].…”

Oseointegración, aspectos que determinan su éxito. Revisión de la literatura.

“…A pesar de que la biocompatibilidad y la velocidad de oseointegración de las superficies recubiertas de hidroxiapatita están demostradas, también se han aportado referencias en cuanto a la variabilidad de la fuerza de unión entre el cuerpo de titanio del implante, el recubrimiento y su distribución poco uniforme. Cuanto mayor es el porcentaje de cristalinidad y menos es la parte amorfa de la hidroxiapatita que recubre el implante mayor calidad tiene, siendo su reabsorción menor y más lenta [53][54][55][56][57] . En función de la rugosidad media en superficie, las micro superficies de los implantes se clasifican en pulidas (entre 0 y 0,4 µm); con rugosidad mínima o maquinada (entre 0;5 y 1 µm); con rugosidad moderada (entre 1 y 2 µm) y con rugosidad elevada (más de 2 µm, como son las superficies con partículas de titanio o hidroxiapatita) 35- [42][43][44] .…”