Removal of Dental Implants Using the Erbium,Chromium:Yttrium-Scandium-Gallium-Garnet Laser and the Conventional Trephine Bur: An in Vitro Comparative Study

Comparison of Four Different Dental Implant Removal Techniques in Terms of the Weight and Volume of Bone Loss

PURPOSE

Several approaches have been suggested for implant removal. However, further research is necessary to review data regarding the amount of bone removed and the duration of removal time for different procedures. This study evaluates and compares various implant removal techniques.  Materials and methods: A polyurethane block was scanned to create an implant surgical guide. Afterward, implant-guided surgery was performed on 60 simulated bone blocks. The implants were then separated into four groups and removed utilizing the counter-torque ratchet, trephine drills, burs, and piezosurgery.

RESULTS

For the weight of bone loss, there were significant differences in the median between the counter-torque ratchet technique (CTRT) and trephine (p < 0.01), CTRT and bur (p < 0.01), trephine and piezo (p < 0.01), and bur and piezo (p = 0.04). All groups, except CTRT and the piezo group, demonstrated a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) in the procedure durations. Regarding the volume of bone loss, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) was found between each group.  Conclusions: CTRT showed the least amount of bone loss. On the other hand, the trephine technique was demonstrated to be the fastest. It is essential to consider the limitations and risks when choosing the approach for implant removal.

A systematic review on removal of osseointegrated implants: un update

BACKGROUND

Today dental implants represent an effective therapy in case of partial or total edentulism, with an excellent success rate. Despite the results obtained, there may be biological or mechanical complications during the therapy, which lead to the loss of the implant. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current state of the art in the literature on techniques used for the removal of dental implants. Various aspects will be analyzed, such as the success of the technique, any complications, and the advantages and disadvantages of their use.

METHODS

Two reviewers conducted a literature analysis (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science) of the last 20 years (2003-2023). The main criterion analyzed was the success of the technique, while secondary outcomes such as complications and risks of the technique were also analyzed. 258 articles were identified in the various search databases. 42 eligible articles were subsequently identified after an article screening. Only 18 full texts were subsequently included in the review.

RESULTS

A total of 18 articles were selected and 1142 implants and 595 patients were included. The main techniques used were the Counter-Torque Ratchet Technique (CTRT), Piezoelectric bone surgery (PBS), trephine drills, carbide burs, Erbium, Chromium, Yttrium, Scandium, Gallium, Garnett (Er:Cr:YSGG) laser and carbon dioxide (CO2) laser. Combined uses of techniques have been identified such as: PBS and trephine burs or carbide burs, trephine burs with the use of a 3d-printed guide, CTRT and trephine burs. The technique with the highest success rate, less morbidity for the patient, and less removal of bone appears to be the CTRT.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of conservative techniques, especially CTRT, in bone removal is useful to allow for immediate implant placement in the removal area. However, further studies with a high sample size are needed to be performed on all techniques, particularly new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that allow for the analysis of the success of alternative techniques such as Laser and Piezosurgery, which appear to be very promising.

Passant Connection Screw of Dental Implants: An In Vitro SEM Preliminary Study

The use of dental implants in oral rehabilitations has become increasingly common, thanks to the safety and predictability of these rehabilitations. Unfortunately, dental implants, being alloplastic devices, are not free from biomechanical complications, especially in the case in which the connections are complex and involve several components. The aim of the study is to highlight what could be surface alterations using different screwing torques, or by repeating the screwing process several times. In this study, 40 passant screws (Osstem®, South Korea Dental Implant Ebony Gold®) were examined under a Zeiss EVO LS 10 scanning electron microscope (SEM), operating with an accelerating voltage of 20 kV. Passant screws were subdivided into 4 groups: 30 Nmm tightening torque; maximum tightening torque; 2 times 30 Nmm tightening torque; no screwing, new ones (control group). There are no significant differences in the surfaces of the passant screws in SEM images, and the 100% of the passant screws is free of defects or fractures. Surely, further studies and investigations will certainly be needed to allow improvement of these devices.

Reversal of Osseointegration as a Novel Perspective for the Removal of Failed Dental Implants: A Review of Five Patented Methods

Osseointegration is the basis of successful dental implantology and the foundation of cementless arthroplasty and the osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system. Osseointegration has been considered irreversible thus far. However, controlled heating or cooling of dental implants could selectively damage the bone at the bone–implant interface, causing the reversal of osseointegration or “osseodisintegration”. This review compares five methods for implant removal, published as patent documents between 2010 and 2018, which have not yet been discussed in the scientific literature. We describe these methods and evaluate their potential for reversing osseointegration. The five methods have several technical and methodological similarities: all methods include a handpiece, a connecting device for coronal access, and a controlling device, as well as the application of mechanical and/or thermal energy. The proposed method of quantifying the temperature with a sensor as the sole means for regulating the process seems inadequate. A database used in one of the methods, however, allows a more precise correlation between a selected implant and the energy needed for its removal, thus avoiding unnecessary trauma to the patient. A flapless, microinvasive, and bone-conserving approach for removing failed dental implants, facilitating successful reimplantation, would benefit dental implantology. These methods could be adapted to cementless medical implants and osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetics. However, for some of the methods discussed herein, further research may be necessary.

Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers

Objectives

This narrative review is aiming on showing reasons for implant failure, removal techniques, and respective clinical considerations; further, the survival rate of implants in previous failed sites is examined.

Materials and methods

Questions have been formulated, answered, and discussed through a literature search including studies assessing implant failure and removal up to 2018.

Results

Studies describing reasons for implant failure, implant removal techniques, and the reinsertion of implants in a previous failed site (n = 12) were included. To date, peri-implantitis is the main reason for late implant failure (81.9%). Trephine burs seem to be the best-known method for implant removal. Nevertheless, the counter-torque-ratchet-technique, because of the low invasiveness, should be the first choice for the clinician. Regarding zirconia implant removal, only scarce data are available. Implantation in previously failed sites irrespective of an early or late failure results in 71% to 100% survival over 5 years.

Conclusion

If removal is required, interventions should be based on considerations regarding minimally invasive access and management as well as predictable healing. (Post)Operative considerations should primarily depend on the defect type and the consecutive implantation plans.

Laser-Assisted Osteotomy for Implant Site Preparation: A Literature Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to review the scientific evidence about the laser osteotomy in implant bed preparation.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed on relevant English articles up to April 2016 in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles (1 clinical, 13 animal, and 8 ex vivo studies) were included. Implant sites prepared by erbium family lasers and drill showed comparable results regarding the percentage of bone-to-implant contact, values of biomechanical tests, and healing process. Selection of proper laser wavelength and parameters was of paramount importance to minimize the risk of thermal bone damage. Lack of depth control and long time needed for implant site osteotomy with laser were the most challenging concerns for its clinical applicability. Computer-guided laser osteotomy showed promise for future use of laser osteotomy in clinical settings.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from animal studies shows promising results regarding laser osteotomy in implant site preparation. However, because of the lack of clinical studies, it is not possible to make a conclusive result whether there is superiority of laser osteotomy in clinical practice.