Implant failure and associated risk indicators: A retrospective study

Patient and implant-related risk factors for implant failure of one-stage lateral sinus floor elevation: A 2- to 10-year retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the early and late implant failure rates of one-stage lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE) and to identify the patient and implant-related risk factors associated with these failures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients treated with one-stage LSFE from January 2014 to December 2021 were evaluated for inclusion. A total of 618 patients with 936 implants met the inclusion criteria. Clinical and radiographic information about patient and implants was collected. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards frailty regression models were performed to identify risk factors for early and late implant failure.

RESULTS

The cumulative implant survival rate was 95.62% (95% CI 93.90%-97.68%), with 16 early implant failures and 25 late implant failures. The Cox analysis indicated that ≤3 mm residual bone height (RBH) was associated with a higher early failure rate. For late implant failure, smoking habit, ≤3 mm RBH, and certain implant brand were independent risk factors. Narrow sinus ostium, long infundibulum, and flat thickening of Schneiderian membrane might be non-independent risk factors for late implant failure. No significance was found in other variables, including age, periodontitis history, implant characteristics (position, diameter, length, protrusion length, marginal bone loss), surgeon experience, healing time, opposing dentition, and prosthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage LSFE is a predictable treatment for patients with atrophic maxilla. ≤3 mm RBH increased the risk of early implant failure, while smoking habit, ≤3 mm RBH, and certain implant brand were independent risk factors for late implant failure.

Local risk factors for one-year dental implant loss and late loss in 287 failed implants caused by peri-implantitis or infection after prosthesis loading: a retrospective study

The purpose of this paper was to retrospectively assess the local factors that are likely to be associated with the risks for one-year dental implant loss.A retrospective study was designed and implemented. The sample consisted of patients who underwent an implant loss or removal caused by peri-implantitis or infection after prosthesis loading. The chi-squared test and generalised estimating equations (GEE) were used to explore the potential risk factors for one-year implant loss. A total of 279 patients with 287 failed implants were enrolled in this study. Immediate implant placement exhibited a 3.373 (95% CI: 1.652 to 6.886) significantly increased risk to experience one-year implant loss than early and late implant placement (p = 0.001). In addition, implants loaded during a healing period fewer than two months after implant placement were at 18.139 (95% CI: 8.925 to 36.866) significantly higher risk of one-year implant loss when compared with those that loaded within more than two months after implant placement (p < 0.001). Smokers were 1.866 (OR = 1.866,95% CI: 0.993 to 3.510) times as high risk for one-year implant loss as non-smokers, but there were no significant statistical differences (p = 0.053). Immediate implant placement and early implant loading were considered risk factors for one-year implant loss.

Screw-retained ceramic-veneered/monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A 5 to 10-year retrospective study on survival and complications

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical performance of screw-retained, ceramic-veneered, monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDP) over 5-10 years and to evaluate implant- and prosthesis-related factors influencing treatment failure and complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Partially edentulous patients treated with screw-retained all-ceramic ISFDPs with 2-4 prosthetic units with a documented follow-up of ≥5 years after implant loading were included in this retrospective study. The outcomes analyzed included implant/prosthesis failure and biological/technical complications. Possible risk factors were identified using the mixed effects Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

A screened sample of 171 participants with 208 prostheses (95% of the restorations were splinted crowns without a pontic) supported by 451 dental implants were enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up duration after prosthesis delivery was 82.4 ±17.2 months. By the end of the follow-up period, 431 (95.57%) of the 451 implants remained functional at the implant level. At the prosthesis level, 185 (88.94%) of the 208 partial ISFDPs remained functional. Biological complications were observed in 67 implants (14.86%), and technical complications were observed in 62 ISFDPs (29.81%). Analysis revealed only emergence profiles (over-contoured) as a significant risk factor for implant failure (P<0.001) and biological complications (P<0.001). Full-coverage ceramic-veneered zirconia prostheses had a significantly greater chance of chipping (P<0.001) compared with buccal-ceramic-veneered or monolithic zirconia prostheses.

CONCLUSIONS

Screw-retained ceramic-veneered, monolithic partial ISFDPs have a favorable long-term survival rate. Over-contoured emergence profile is a significant risk factor associated with implant failure and biological complications. Buccal-ceramic-veneered and monolithic zirconia partial ISFDPs lower the initial prevalence of chipping compared with a full-coverage veneered design.

Risk Factors for Early Implant Failure and Selection of Bone Grafting Materials for Various Bone Augmentation Procedures: A Narrative Review

Implant therapy is now an established treatment with high long-term success and survival rates. However, early implant failure, which occurs within one year of superstructure placement, occurs at a higher rate than late failure, which is represented by peri-implantitis caused by bacterial infection. Furthermore, various risk factors for early failure have been reported, including patient-related factors, such as systemic diseases, smoking, and bone quality and quantity, as well as surgery-related factors, such as surgeons' skill, osteogenesis technique, and selection of graft material, and implant-related factors, such as initial implant fixation and implant length diameter. Due to the wide variety of relevant factors reported, it is difficult to identify the cause of the problem. The purpose of this review is to discuss the risk factors associated with various types of bone augmentation which have a close causal relationship with early implant failure, and to determine the optimal bone grafting material for bone augmentation procedures to avoid early implant failure.

Retrospective analysis of 50,333 implants on implant failure and associated patient-related factors

PURPOSE

The aim of this investigation was to retrospectively evaluate the long-term implant loss rates and to identify associations between implant failure and patient-related factors in a sample of patients who had consecutively received implant therapy in ten dental universities in the United States using a large database.

METHODS

Dental records of adult patients who had attended the dental clinics of the universities contributing data to the BigMouth network between 2011 and 2022 seeking dental therapy were evaluated. Information regarding patients' characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, race, tobacco use and systemic medical conditions were extracted from patients' files.

RESULTS

A total of 20,842 patients who received 50,333 dental implants over a 12-year period (2011-2022) were included. The mean age of the cohort was 57.50±14.27 years which consisted of 51.8% females, 91.1% non-Hispanic, 66.3% white individuals and 8% tobacco users. In the univariate analysis, ethnicity, race and marijuana use were significantly associated with implant treatment outcome. Race and ethnicity were significantly associated with implant loss in the multivariate analysis. The implant failure rate was estimated to be 2.7% at the patient level and 1.4% at the implant level.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this retrospective study that utilized records of 50,333 dental implants placed in ten institutions contributing data to the BigMouth network, the implant failure rate was estimated to be 2.7% at patient level and 1.4% at implant level. Ethnicity and race were significantly associated with implant failure, while none of the examined systemic conditions were associated with implant loss.

Association between smoking and peri-implant diseases: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association between tobacco and peri-implant diseases in a sample of patients who had received implant-supported restorations in a university dental clinic. Furthermore, the study aimed to investigate patient- and implant-related variables associated with peri-implant diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present retrospective study analyzed data from 117 patients treated with implant-supported restorations from 2001 to 2013. A total of 450 implants were evaluated. Patients were selected from an electronic database, and patient- and implant-related variables were evaluated. Detailed information regarding the smoking history (i.e., smoking status, lifetime cumulative dose, duration of exposure, intensity of the habit, and smoking cessation) was recorded. The primary study outcome was peri-implant status [i.e., health (H), peri-implant mucositis (PM) and peri-implantitis (PI)]. Univariate and multinomial regression models comparing PM and PI versus peri-implant health were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 117 subjects [55 (47%) females and 62 (53%) males] with a mean age at examination of 64.2 years (SD 11.6) and rehabilitated with 450 implants were included. The average number of implants per patient was 4.6 (SD 3.3) with a mean time in function of 8.0 years (SD 1.9). Fifty-six patients (47.9%) were non-smokers, 42 (35.9%) were former-smokers, and 19 (16.2%) were current-smokers. Thirty-nine subjects (33.4%) were H, whereas 41 (35%) and 37 (31.6%) exhibited PM and PI, respectively. At implant level, the corresponding values were 142 (31.6%), 230 (51.1%) and 78 (17.3%). In the multinomial regression model, significant associations for peri-implant diseases were observed for the mean number of implants per patient (p = .016), function time (p = .048), implants placed simultaneously with guided bone regeneration (p = .016), implant surface (p = .020), keratinized mucosa at the buccal aspect (p = .032), and access to interproximal hygiene (p < .001). In addition, ever smokers >23 pack-years exhibited a significantly higher risk for peri-implantitis (p = .002). Finally, the multinomial regression analysis revealed that subjects who had stopped smoking more than 21 years before the last examination presented a significantly lower risk of peri-implant diseases than a smoking cessation of ≤21 years (p = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoke intensity was associated with an increased risk of the development of peri-implantitis. Moreover, the risk of peri-implant diseases might be similar in those subjects who had stopped smoking for more than 21 years with respect to never-smokers.

Efficacy of laser in re-osseointegration of dental implants-a systematic review

Despite their high success rates, peri-implantitis can affect the stability and function of dental implants. Various treatment modalities have been investigated for the treatment of peri-implantitis to achieve re-osseointegration. An electronic literature search was performed supplemented by a manual search to identify studies published until January 2022. Articles that evaluated re-osseointegration in peri-implantitis sites in animal models following laser therapy or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) were included. Case reports, case series, systematic reviews, and letters to the editor were excluded. Risk of bias and GRADE assessment were followed to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Six studies out of 26 articles identified on electronic search were included in this review. The studies included animal studies conducted on canine models. Four out of six studies reported a higher degree of re-osseointegration following treatment of implants with laser therapy. The findings suggest that laser decontamination shows potential in enhancing re-osseointegration, particularly with the Er: YAG laser, which effectively decontaminated implant surfaces. However, conflicting outcomes and limitations in the evidence quality warrant caution in drawing definitive conclusions. Based on the limited available evidence, laser therapy may show a higher degree of re-osseointegration of implants than mechanical debridement.

The influence of smoking on the incidence of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the influence of smoking on the incidence of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search was performed in the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases (finished on November 30, 2022). Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA statement. Prospective cohort studies that evaluate the incidence of peri-implantitis in smokers and non-smokers were included. Two authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened titles, and abstracts, did the full-text analysis, extracted data, and performed the risk-of-bias assessment. The results were summarized through random-effects meta-analyses. The GRADE method was used to determine the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies with 702 patients and 1959 implants were included for analysis. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between smokers and non-smokers for the risk of peri-implantitis in the implant-based (p < .0001) and patient-based analysis (p = .003). A strong association between smoking and the risk for peri-implantitis was verified at the implant level (RR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.46-1.85) and the patient level (RR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.42-5.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence suggests that smoking is associated with peri-implantitis compared to non-smoking at the patient and implant levels.

Oral and Periodontal Risk Factors of Prosthetic Success for 3-Unit Natural Tooth-Supported Bridges versus Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses

The goals of this research are: (1) to compare the survival and prosthetic success of metal-ceramic 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported fixed dental prostheses; (2) to evaluate the influence of several risk factors on the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs). A total of 68 patients with posterior short edentulous spaces (mean age 61.00 ± 1.325 years), were divided into two groups: 3-unit tooth-supported FPDs (40 patients; 52 FPD; mean follow-up 10.27 ± 0.496 years) and 3-unit implant-supported FPDs (28 patients; 32 FPD; mean follow-up 8.656 ± 0.718 years). Pearson-chi tests were used to highlight the risk factors for the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported FPDs and multivariate analysis was used to determine significant risk predictors for the prosthetic success of the tooth-supported FPDs. The survival rates of 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs were 100% and 87.5%, respectively, while the prosthetic success was 69.25% and 68.75%, respectively. The prosthetic success of tooth-supported FPDs was significantly higher for patients older than 60 years (83.3%) vs. 40-60 years old (57.1%) (p = 0.041). Periodontal disease history decreased the prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs when compared with the absence of periodontal history (45.5% vs. 86.7%, p = 0.001; 33.3% vs. 90%, p = 0.002). The prosthetic success of 3-unit tooth- vs. implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene in our study. In conclusion, similar rates of prosthetic success were recorded for both types of FPDs. In our study, prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene; however, history of periodontal disease is a significant negative predictor of success in both groups when compared with patients without periodontal history.

Masseter muscle cross-sectional area and late implant failure: A case-control study

INTRODUCTION

Occlusal overload is considered to be one of the causes of late implant failure. However, it is unclear whether the magnitude of the patient's occlusal force is a risk factor for late implant failure.

PURPOSE

This case-control study aimed to clarify the association between the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the masseter muscle and late implant failure.

METHODS

This case-control study was limited to implant-supported fixed prostheses. We compared cases with at least one late implant failure (n = 25 patients) to controls (n = 82 patients) without implant failure. Patients were matched by age, sex, year of surgery, jaw and tooth type, and bone graft. Log-rank and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to identify possible risk factors for late implant failure.

RESULTS

The incidence of late implant failure was significantly associated with masseter muscle CSA ≥504.5 mm² (hazard ratio: 4.43; 95% CI: 1.82-10.79; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Higher masseter muscle CSA increases the risk of late implant failure.

Implant failure and associated risk factors of transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate early and late implant loss rates after transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) and to identify the risk factors related to these failures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients treated with TSFE and simultaneous implant placement during October 2015 to March 2019 were evaluated for inclusion. A total of 802 patients with 976 implants met the inclusion criteria. Clinical and radiographic information was collected from medical records and image software. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards frailty regression models were performed to identify potential risk factors associated with early and late implant loss after TSFE.

RESULTS

The 3-year cumulative implant survival rate was 96.9% (95% CI 95.8%-98.0%). Twelve implants in 12 patients were lost before or at the abutment connection, while 24 implants in 24 patients were lost after functional loading. The Cox frailty regression analyses indicated that two factors were correlated with early implant loss: TSFE with grafting materials, and operators with less clinical experience. As for late implant loss, RBH ≤6 mm, male sex, and certain implant brands were associated with a significantly increased failure rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcrestal sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement is a predictable treatment option in the atrophic maxilla. The presence of grafting materials and the lack of clinical experience of the surgeon were possibly associated with early implant loss, while low RBH, male sex, and certain implant brands tended to increase late implant loss.

Rough Dental Implant Surfaces and Peri-Implantitis: Role of Phase-Contrast Microscopy, Laser Protocols, and Modified Home Oral Hygiene in Maintenance. A 10-Year Retrospective Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate two different kinds of rough implant surface and to assess their tendency to peri-implantitis disease, with a follow-up of more than 10 years. Data were obtained from a cluster of 500 implants with Ti-Unite surface and 1000 implants with Ossean surface, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Implants had been inserted both in pristine bone and regenerated bone. We registered incidence of peri-implantitis and other causes of implant loss. All patients agreed with the following maintenance protocol: sonic brush with vertical movement (Broxo), interdental brushes, and oral irrigators (Broxo) at least two times every day. For all patients with implants, we evaluated subgingival plaque samples by phase-contrast microscopy every 4 months for a period of more than 10-years. Ti-Unite surface implants underwent peri-implantitis in 1.6% of the total number of implants inserted and Ossean surface implants showed peri-implantitis in 1.5% of the total number of implants. The total percentage of implant lost was 4% for Ti-Unite surfaces and 3.6% for Ossean surfaces. Strict control of implants leads to low percentage of peri-implantitis even for rough surfaces dental implants.