|Year : 2020 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 9-10
A review on survival rate of dental implants placed at sites postimplant failure
H Juneja Firdaus1, A Gandhewar Mahesh2, M Nagaral Suresh3, Girija Dodamani4, N Walele Afraz5, AH Khan Rafa1, Bhagyashri Bachate1
1 Postgraduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics, ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra, India
2 Professor and HOD, Department of Prosthodontics, ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra, India
3 Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra, India
4 Reader, Department of Prosthodontics, ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra, India
5 Senior Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics, ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra, India
|Date of Submission||14-Oct-2020|
|Date of Acceptance||17-Nov-2020|
|Date of Web Publication||29-Jan-2021|
Dr. H Juneja Firdaus
Department of Prosthodontics, ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Dental implant failures occur occasionally, and clinicians may hesitate to perform a second implantation because of the uncertain prognosis. The survival rate of retreated implants is lower than that generally reported after initial implant placement. The purpose of this review was to examine the survival rate of implants placed at sites which had an implant failure and to investigate factors that might affect outcomes after retreatment.
Keywords: Clinical studies, endosseous dental implants, fixed denture, implant restorations, implant survival, re-implantation, removable denture, success
|How to cite this article:|
Firdaus H J, Mahesh A G, Suresh M N, Dodamani G, Afraz N W, Khan Rafa A H, Bachate B. A review on survival rate of dental implants placed at sites postimplant failure. Int J Med Oral Res 2020;5:9-10
|How to cite this URL:|
Firdaus H J, Mahesh A G, Suresh M N, Dodamani G, Afraz N W, Khan Rafa A H, Bachate B. A review on survival rate of dental implants placed at sites postimplant failure. Int J Med Oral Res [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 10];5:9-10. Available from: http://www.ijmorweb.com/text.asp?2020/5/2/9/308279
| Introduction|| |
Success of dental implants is commonly defined by implant survival. An implant-supported restoration offers a predictable treatment for tooth replacement. Reported success rates for dental implants are high. Nevertheless, failures that mandate immediate implant removal do occur. The consequences of implant removal jeopardize the clinician's efforts to accomplish satisfactory function and esthetics. For the patient, this usually involves further cost and additional procedures.,
| Success of Dental Implant|| |
Success of dental implants is commonly defined by implant survival. Implant failure probably results from multifactorial process. There are various causes related to early (overheating, contamination and trauma during surgery, poor bone quantity and/or quality, lack of primary stability, and incorrect immediate load indication), and late (peri-implantitis, occlusal trauma, and overloading) failure. Ongoing marginal bone loss (MBL) could also put at risk implant survival in the long-term. Criteria for implant success should serve as an aid to clinical follow-up and to help evaluate the clinical outcomes of different implant systems in research. For clinical use, MBL assessment should be easy to apply using radiographs and should allow a quick gross comparison to previous data. It is essential to identify a failing implant in time to avoid continuous alveolar bone loss which might complicate the option of replacing the failed implant with a new one as well as impair the esthetic outcome of the area.
| Replacing Dental Implant|| |
Replacement of a failing implant involves the challenge of achieving osseointegration in a compromised bone site. When treatment cost and additional procedures to the patient are considered, the clinician needs information regarding the predictability of replacing a failed implant. This information should be discussed with the patient for informed consent for the subsequent attempt. There is still a lack of sufficient evidence-based data regarding failed implant replacement. Meticulous removal of granulation tissue on the failed implant site and the use of wider implants with improved surfaces could improve the outcome of reimplantation. Further research with a large cohort for a long follow-up period is warranted. An implant that replaces a previously failed one could serve as a predictable procedure with reasonable survival rates. However, these survival rates are lower than the rates reported for first attempt single implant placement. Clinicians should remember that once an implant has failed, replacement of that implant is subjected to at least all the initial factors that led to the failure.,
| Alternative Prosthesis|| |
When planning implant rehabilitation or when facing implant failure, one should always refer to the question: How many teeth are necessary for adequate function or what dentition assures oral function? In some instances, the treated area can remain edentulous and this should be considered as an option. Twenty teeth have been used as an operative expression for a functional natural dentition. This should also be remembered when dealing with implant failure. The alternative use of fixed partial denture (FPD), if applicable, is another treatment modality. Recently, a thorough systematic review was conducted that analyzed and compared the survival and success rates of different designs of tooth and implant-supported fixed reconstructions and assessed the incidence of biological and technical complications of FPDs and dental implants. Tooth longevity is largely dependent on the health status of the periodontium, pulp or periapical region, and extent of reconstructions. Multiple risks lead to a critical appraisal of the value of a tooth. Oral implants when evaluated after 10 years of service present with a longevity that does not surpass that of even compromised, but successfully treated and maintained teeth.,,,,
Removable partial dentures (RPDs) are still extensively used for the restoration of partially edentulous patients. However, these prostheses have been associated with poor patient acceptance, compromised function and esthetics, and increased risk for caries and periodontal disease. However, there is an increased need for the management of partially edentulous patients, which is due to the increase in life expectancy and the well-documented decline in tooth loss and total edentulism over the past several decades. The problematic long-term clinical experience of restoring partially edentulous patients with RPDs in the era when implants are predictably used for the same patient group suggests the use of implants in combination with RPDs. Implants are used to improve the RPD support, enhance retention and stability, preserve the residual ridge underneath the denture base, reduce the stress applied on the abutment teeth, eliminate the need for unesthetic clasp assemblies, and modify unfavorable arch configurations. In general, RPDs are still needed in cases of unreplaced failed implants, or where economic, systemic, or local anatomic conditions preclude the use of extensive rehabilitation with fixed implant-supported restorations. Laboratory and clinical studies show the effectiveness of implant-supported RPDs.,
| Prognosis of Failed Dental Implant|| |
The survival rate of retreated implants is lower than that generally reported after initial implant placement. Higher survival rates were reported with rough-surfaced implants than with smooth-surfaced implants in retreatment. An overall implant survival rate of 86.3% after retreatment suggests that most initial implant failures are likely attributable to modifiable risk factors, such as implant architecture, anatomic site, infection, and occlusal overload.,,
| Conclusion|| |
Patients should be informed regarding all possible treatment modalities after implant failure and give their consent to the most appropriate treatment option for them. Implant therapy has become common practice and will probably gain in popularity during the next several years. This implies that dental professionals will have to deal more with implant failure and related complications. When an implant fails, a tailor made treatment plan should be provided to each patient according to all relevant variables.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Grossmann Y, Levin L. Success and survival of single dental implants placed in sites of previously failed implants. J Periodontol 2007;78:1670-4.
Machtei EE, Mahler D, Oettinger-Barak O, Zuabi O, Horwitz J. Dental implants placed in previously failed sites: Survival rate and factors affecting the outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:259-64.
Kim YK, Park JY, Kim SG, Lee HJ. Prognosis of the implants replaced after removal of failed dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:281-6.
Mardinger O, Zvi YB, Chaushu G, Nissan J, Manor Y. A retrospective analysis of replacing dental implants in previously failed sites. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;114:290-3.
Wang F, Zhang Z, Monje A, Huang W, Wu Y, Wang G. Intermediate long-term clinical performance of dental implants placed in sites with a previous early implant failure: A retrospective analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1443-9.
Manor Y, Chaushu G, Lorean A, Mijiritzky E. A retrospective analysis of dental implants replacing failed implants in grafted maxillary sinus: A case series. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:1156-60.
World Health Organization. Recent Advances in Oral Health. WHO Technical Report Series. No. 826. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992. p. 16-7.
Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival of dental implants placed in sites of previously failed implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1348-53.
Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18 Suppl 3:97-113.
Witter DJ, van Helderman WH, Creugers NH, Käyser AF. The shortened dental arch concept and its implications for oral health care. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:249-58.