Failure of oral implants: aetiology, symptoms and influencing factors

The use of oral implants opened a wide range of prosthetic treatment possibilities in edentulous patients. Although the reported success rates of oral implants are high, failures do occur. This paper reviews the current knowledge about the aetiology, the signs and symptoms and the possible influencing factors of implant failure. Possible causes of implant failure are thought to be infection of the periimplant tissues, occlusal overload, or a combination of both. Nevertheless, pinpointing one of these as the aetiological factor in a particular case is difficult and should be handled reluctantly. Although the cause might seem obvious, influencing factors could play a role as well. Gaining insight into these processes might stimulate the adoption of preventive action and therefore increase the predictability of the treatment outcome with oral implants.     

Educating a patient with dental implants

A functional dentition can be restored for edentulous and partially edentulous patients through the placement of dental implants. Dental assistants have a significant role in the education of implant patients so that meticulous oral self-care can be accomplished. Only through the combined team efforts of the dental office staff and patients themselves will the continued success of dental implantology be insured.     

Clinical evaluations of a porous-surfaced endosseous implant system

Clinical evaluations of a new porous-surfaced implant concept (Endopore) in a large population of fully and partially edentulous patients are reported, and a technique of spreading buccal and lingual plates with osteotomes to place these implants in proximity to the sinus of the posterior maxilla is described. Three-dimensional, interconnecting pores on this implant's bone interface surface give a great surface area for bone engagement. When the maxilla is prepared by this spreading procedure, these implants can be successfully placed in areas having limited available bone. Our success rates are 97.0% for implants stabilizing a mandibular overdenture and 94.8% for implants placed in partially edentulous patients. Many times, sinus lift or other augmentation procedures can be avoided in the maxilla and mandible, allowing for less patient morbidity and for an implant reconstruction that is more affordable for the patient.     

Treatment planning and surgical considerations for placement of wide-body implants

Partially edentulous implant treatment has evolved from using a standard diameter fixture for every tooth site to selection of the implant diameter according to the surgical demands, space available, and the dimension of the final prosthetic tooth. The advantages are functional, improved emergence profiles for esthetics, and optimal contours for oral hygiene maintenance. This article reviews presurgical treatment planning for wide-diameter implants.     

Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology

The aim of this review was to offer a critical evaluation of the literature and to provide the clinician with scientifically-based diagnostic criteria for monitoring the implant condition. The review presents the current opinions on definitions of osseointegration and implant failure. Further, distinctions between failed and failing implants are discussed together with the presently used parameters to assess the implant status. Radiographic examinations together with implant mobility tests seem to be the most reliable parameters in the assessment of the prognosis for osseointegrated implants. On the basis of 73 published articles, the rates of early and late failures of Br?nemark implants, used in various anatomical locations and clinical situations, were analyzed using a metanalytic approach. Biologically related implant failures calculated on a sample of 2,812 implants were relatively rare: 7.7% over a 5-year period (bone graft excluded). The predictability of implant treatment was remarkable, particularly for partially edentulous patients, who showed failure rates about half those of totally edentulous subjects. Our analysis also confirmed (for both early and late failures) the general trend of maxillas, having almost 3 times more implant losses than mandibles, with the exception of the partially edentulous situation which displayed similar failure rates both in upper and lower jaws. Surgical trauma together with anatomical conditions are believed to be the most important etiological factors for early implant losses (3.60% of 16,935 implants). The low prevalence of failures attributable to peri-implantitis found in the literature together with the fact that, in general, partially edentulous patients have less resorbed jaws, speak in favour of jaw volume, bone quality, and overload as the three major determinants for late implant failures in the Br?nemark system. Conversely, the ITI system seemed to be characterized by a higher prevalence of losses due to peri-implantitis. These differences may be attributed to the different implant designs and surface characteristics. On the basis of the published literature, there appears to be a number of scientific issues which are yet not fully understood. Therefore, it is concluded that further clinical follow-up and retrieval studies are required in order to achieve a better understanding of the mechanisms for failure of osseointegrated implants.     

Comparison of position repeatability of a human operator and an industrial manipulating robot

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-supported restorations in the partially edentulous jaw have been performed at the Mayo Clinic for more than 10 years. Clinical performance of the implants and the prostheses should be reported to ensure effectiveness of this procedure. PURPOSE: This retrospective study described results for implant survival, implant fracture rate, prosthetic complications, and design changes that may impact these results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all registered implant patients in a large multispecialty medical center. Patients with a partially edentulous jaw who had received endosseous implants to support and retain dental prostheses were included in this review. Implant survival and fracture, prosthetic complications, and demographic data were recorded and analyzed through Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: A total of 1170 implants were placed in four anatomic locations: anterior maxilla, posterior maxilla, anterior mandible, or posterior mandible. Location of implants was shown to have no effect on implant survival (p = 0.7398), implant fracture rates (p = 0.2385), screw loosening (p = 0.8253), or screw fracture (p = 0.2737). Development of new restorative components has resulted in significantly better rates of implant survival without fracture (p = 0.0054), screw function without loosening (p < 0.0001) and screw function without fracture (p = 0.0013). Implant survival seems to have been improved with the new components (p = 0.0513). CONCLUSIONS: Implant survival in this study was independent of anatomic location of implants. Virtually all clinical performance factors were improved by design changes in implant restorative components that were brought to market in early 1991.     

Crevicular fluid enzymes from endosseous dental implants and natural teeth

Several neutrophil-derived enzymes that are present in the gingival crevicular fluid have been evaluated for use as risk markers for periodontal disease progression. However, very little information is available about the presence of these enzymes in peri-implant tissues. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to compare levels of enzymes in gingival crevicular fluid between natural teeth and endosseous dental implants and between well-integrated and failing implants. Scores of plaque and gingivitis were recorded for 68 integrated implants, five failing implants, and 34 natural teeth in 12 completely edentulous and 18 partially edentulous subjects. Samples of gingival crevicular fluid were obtained from these sites using filter paper strips and were assayed for levels of neutral protease, neutrophil elastase, myeloperoxidase, and beta-glucuronidase. Neutral protease levels were higher (P = .066) at moderately to severely inflamed implant sites (Gingival Index of 2, 3) compared to mildly or noninflamed sites (Gingival Index of = 0, 1). Despite the small number (n = 5) of failing implants evaluated in this study, levels of neutrophil elastase, myeloperoxidase, and beta-glucuronidase were significantly higher (P < or = .001) around failing implants compared to successful implants. Neutral protease levels were also elevated around failing implants, but the difference was not statistically significant. Results of this study indicate that neutrophil elastase, myeloperoxidase, and beta-glucuronidase levels in GCF appear to be good candidates for study as risk markers of implant failure.     

Radiographic modalities for diagnosis and treatment planning in implant dentistry

Early in the development of implant technology it became apparent that conventional dental imaging techniques were limited for evaluating patients for implant surgery. During the treatment planning phase, the recipient bed is routinely assessed by visual examination and palpation, as well as by periapical and panoramic radiology. These two imaging modalities provide a two-dimensional image of mesial-distal and occlusal-apical dimensions of the edentulous regions where implants might be placed. When adequate occlusal-apical bone height is available for endosteal implants, the buccal-lingual width and angulation of the available bone are the most important criteria for implant selection and success. However, neither buccal-lingual width nor angulation can be visualized on most traditional radiographs. Although clinical examination and traditional radiographs may be adequate for patients with wide residual ridges that exhibit sufficient bone crestal to the mandibular nerve and maxillary sinus, these methods do not allow for precise measurement of the buccolingual dimension of the bone or assessment of the location of unanticipated undercuts. For these concerns, it is necessary to view the recipient site in a plane perpendicular to a curved plane through the arch of the maxilla or mandible in the region of the proposed implants. Implant dentists soon recognized that, for optimum placement of implants, cross-sectional views of the maxilla and mandible were the ideal means of providing necessary pre-operative information. Today, the two most often employed and most applicable radiographic studies for implant treatment planning are the panoramic radiograph and tomography. Although distortion can be a major problem with panoramic radiographs, when performed properly they can provide valuable information, and are both readily accessible and cost efficient. To help localize potential implant sites and assist in obtaining accurate measurements, it is recommended that surgical stents be used with panoramic radiographs. In simple cases, where a limited number of implants are to be placed, panoramic radiography and/or tomography may be used to obtain a view of the arch of the jaw in the area of interest. For complex, cases, where multiple implants are required, the CT scan imaging procedure is recommended. Because of its ability to reconstruct a fully three dimensional model of the maxilla and mandible, CT provides a highly sophisticated format for precisely defining the jaw structure and locating critical anatomic structures. The use of CT scans in conjunction with software that renders immediate "treatment plans" using the most real and accurate information provides the most effective radiographic modality currently available for the evaluation of patients for oral implants. To follow patients after implant surgery, DSR can be helpful by addressing the limitations of other radiographic modalities in detecting postoperative changes. By eliminating unchanged information, DSR allows the clinician's eye to focus on actual changes that have occurred between the recordings of two images.     

Available bone is the foremost criterion in the insertion of endosteal implants

The foremost criterion in the insertion of endosteal implants is bone availability. Implant dentists should consider first the amount of available bone of the edentulous ridge where the endosteal implant will be inserted. A common error and cause of many implant failures is the dentist's use of an implant modality which is not indicated for the density and morphology of the available bone in the edentulous ridge. Implant modality/system is not the primary criterion in the insertion of endosteal implants. Before the dentist inserts an endosteal implant, he should gauge or measure the amount of bone where the implant is intended to be placed. It should be measured in width, height, length, trajectory, and implant-crown ratio. After recording the measurements of the available bone, these should be placed in different categories to serve as guides in implant selection. If there is not enough bone for the endosteal implant, bone modification should be performed. This can be done either by osteoplasty or ridge augmentation with the use of bone grafting materials. Aside from the amount of available bone in the edentulous ridge, another very, very important thing that should be considered is the quality or its density. Any biocompatible implant demonstrates some osseointegrated surfaces depending upon the bone type into which it is placed and the loads placed upon it. Implant body must exhibit a macrogeometry suitable for acceptable levels of force transfer to the surrounding tissues as well as for implantation into a bony site of a particular anatomic size.     

Advanced surgical procedures: bone augmentation

Over the last ten years there has been a significant increase in the range and type of edentulous defects that can be treated using osseointegrated implants. Encouraged by the long-term success of implant reconstructions in the edentulous mandible and maxilla, and the availability of novel implant attachments, clinicians will now undertake more elaborate treatment involving the partially edentate and those with localized or generalized tissue deficiencies. This clinical trend places increasing demands on the predictability, complexity and accuracy of the surgical procedure necessary to allow a successful prosthetic reconstruction. This is especially so when potential implant sites lie in areas of high aesthetic or functional requirements.     

Optimizing multiple individual anterior implant restorations with a new generation implant-abutment system; IMZTwinPlus: a case report and treatment rationale

A 53-year-old male with a history of initial oral facial trauma causing the loss of three maxillary incisors, multiple failures of tooth-borne fixed prosthetic reconstructions, and a resultant condition of structural failure of abutment cuspids and lateral incisor was to be retreated. The case contained numerous anatomic and dimensional constraints. The patient's desire to achieve a long-term, dependable prosthetic reconstruction prompted professional consideration of incorporating implants to lend structural support in the edentulous area. An extensive review of current implant-abutment options and their single-tooth implant replacement design and treatment rationales was conducted. The IMZ Generation III (IMZTwinPlus) implant system, a nonhex system, was chosen for treatment of the case of report to optimize mechanics, biomechanics, and esthetics for multiple individual-tooth implant replacement.     

Long-term follow-up on hydroxylapatite-coated cylindrical dental implants: a comparison between developmental and recent periods

PURPOSE: To compare success rates for dental implants placed from 1985 through 1988 and from 1989 through 1991, and to investigate the factors associated with success or failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All hydroxylapatite-coated cylindrical implants placed from 1985 through 1991 were followed yearly. Lifetable survival analyses compared implant success for a "developmental period" from 1985 through 1988 (4 to 8 years follow-up) and a "recent period" from 1989 through 1991 (1 to 4 years follow-up). Reasons for success or failure, time from implant placement to removal related to failure reason, outcome after implant removal, and a morbidity analysis are included. RESULTS: The 7 to 8-year cumulative success rate for all implants placed in the developmental period (maxilla and mandible combined) was 86.5%; it was 84.2% for all maxillary implants and 87.5% for all mandibular implants. The cumulative success rate for all implants placed in the recent period was 97.5%; it was 97.5% for all maxillary implants and 97.6% for all mandibular implants. The difference between the two periods was statistically significant only for the anterior maxilla. Regression analysis on the interval success rates indicates that interval failure did not follow a linear relationship with time. The most common reasons associated with failure were lack of keratinized gingiva, poor oral hygiene, mechanical overload, and malposition. CONCLUSION: Comparison with previously reported cumulative success rates indicated learning curve experiences comparable with other implant systems. Improvements in hardware, surgical and prosthetic techniques, and patient selection have led to an improvement in success rates with the recent period implants.     

Association between marginal bone loss around osseointegrated mandibular implants and smoking habits: a 10-year follow-up study

While many factors are conceivable, occlusal loading and plaque-induced inflammation are frequently stated as the most important ones negatively affecting the prognosis of oral implants. Currently, little is known about the relative importance of such factors. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of smoking and other possibly relevant factors on bone loss around mandibular implants. The participants were 45 edentulous patients, 21 smokers and 24 non-smokers, who were followed for 10-year period after treatment with a fixed implant-supported prosthesis in the mandible. The peri-implant bone level was measured on intraoral radiographs, information about smoking habits was based on a careful interview, and oral hygiene was evaluated from clinical registration of plaque accumulation. Besides standard statistical methods, multiple linear regression models were constructed for estimation of the relative influence of some factors on peri-implant bone loss. The long-term results of the implant treatment were good, and only three implants (1%) were lost. The mean marginal bone loss around the mandibular implants was very small, about 1 mm for the entire 10-year period. It was greater in smokers than in non-smokers and correlated to the amount of cigarette consumption. Smokers with poor oral hygiene showed greater marginal bone loss around the mandibular implants than those with good oral hygiene. Oral hygiene did not significantly affect bone loss in non-smokers. Multivariate analyses showed that smoking was the most important factor among those analyzed for association with peri-implant bone loss. The separate models for smokers and non-smokers revealed that oral hygiene had a greater impact on peri-implant bone loss among smokers than among non-smokers. This study showed that smoking was the most important factor affecting the rate of peri-implant bone loss, and that oral hygiene also had an influence, especially in smokers, while other factors, e.g., those associated with occlusal loading, were of minor importance. These results indicate that smoking habits should be included in analyses of implant survival and peri-implant bone loss.     

Proteoglycan expression by human trabecular meshworks

The aim of the present study was to clinically assess the peri-implant and periodontal conditions 1 year after placement of oral implants (ITI Dental Implant System) in partially edentulous patients. In all, 127 patients (median age 50 years, range 17 to 79) were examined. They were all treated according to a concept of comprehensive dental care and had received fixed partial dentures (FPD). Significant differences were observed between implants and contralateral control teeth with respect to mean pocket probing depth (PPD) (2.55 mm at implants/2.02 mm at teeth), mean probing attachment level (PAL) (2.97 mm/2.53 mm) and bleeding on probing (BOP) (24%/12%) (Wilcoxon matched pairs sign rank test, P < or = 0.01), whereas mean modified plaque index (0.22/0.30), mean modified bleeding index (0.35/0.44) and mean recession (-0.42 mm/-0.51 mm) did not significantly differ between implants and teeth. Compared to control teeth, the width of keratinized mucosa at implants was significantly smaller at lingual, but not at buccal aspects. Regression analyses showed no significant association between the amount of keratinized mucosa and degree of inflammation. Recession, PPD and PAL were slightly influenced by the amount of keratinized mucosa indicating greater resistance to probing. Grouping the implants according to various lengths, type of fixation of the FPD or combination with natural teeth did not result in statistically significant different clinical parameters, whereas grouping according to different localization within the oral cavity did. For example, the mean PAL in 83 anterior implants was 2.52 mm, whereas 175 posterior implants had a mean PAL of 3.18 mm (Mann-Whitney U-test, P < or = 0.01). Regression analyses between the mean PAL for all implants in each patient and the mean PAL of the corresponding dentition revealed an r2 of 0.23 (P < or = 0.01). Using multiple regression analysis, the mean PAL of the implants showed to be significantly influenced by the combined factors "fullmouth" PII, "fullmouth" BOP and mean PAL of all teeth. The results of this study suggest that in partially edentulous patients the overall periodontal condition may influence the clinical condition around implants and thus reinforces the importance of periodontal treatment prior to and supportive periodontal therapy after the incorporation of osseointegrated oral implants.     

Biomechanical advantages of wide-diameter implants

In implant cases in which bone quantity and interdental space are sufficient, wide-diameter implants may be preferable to standard-size implants in restoring the partially edentulous patient. Although wide-diameter implants are often considered for their esthetic possibilities, they can also offer important biomechanical advantages, particularly in reducing the magnitude of stress delivered to various parts of the implant and in improving stability. In this article, standard 3.7-mm- and wide 4.7-mm-diameter implants are compared and discussed.     

Implants in the partially edentulous patient: restorative considerations

Restorative considerations are critical to the long-term success of fixed implant-supported prostheses, especially in the posterior quadrants of the partially edentulous patient. The parafunctional habit of bruxism must be identified and addressed. The restoration should dictate implant placement. Control of forces directed upon the prosthesis and implants is critical to long-term success. Anatomic limitations to implant placement and surgical procedures to correct these deficiencies must be considered for their impact on the prosthetic restoration. Nonaxial forces or bending moments should be minimized by the use of an adequate number, position and alignment of implants; by control of the occlusion; and by design of the prosthesis. The patient must understand the risks, limitations, costs and time commitments of implant restorations prior to treatment.     

Effects of guided bone regeneration around commercially pure titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated dental implants. II. Histologic analysis

The purpose of this study was to determine which treatment of a large osseous defect adjacent to an endosseous dental implant would produce the greatest regeneration of bone and degree of osseointegration: barrier membrane therapy plus demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA), membrane therapy alone, or no treatment. The current study histologically assessed changes in bone within the healed peri-implant osseous defect. In a split-mouth design, 6 implants were placed in edentulous mandibular ridges of 10 mongrel dogs after preparation of 6 cylindrical mid-crestal defects, 5 mm in depth, and 9.525 mm in diameter. An implant site was then prepared in the center of each defect to a depth of 5 mm beyond the apical extent of the defect. One mandibular quadrant received three commercially pure titanium (Ti) screw implants (3.75 x 10 mm), while the contralateral side received three hydroxyapatite (HA) coated root-form implants (3.3 x 10 mm). Consequently, the coronal 5 mm of each implant was surrounded by a circumferential defect approximately 3 mm wide and 5 mm deep. The three dental implants in each quadrant received either DFDBA (canine source) and an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (ePTFE), ePTFE membrane alone, or no treatment which served as the control. Clinically, the greatest increase in ridge height and width was seen with DFDBA/ePTFE. Histologically, statistically significant differences in defect osseointegration were seen between treatment groups (P < 0.0001: DFDBA/ePTFE > ePTFE alone > control). HA-coated implants had significantly greater osseointegration within the defect than Ti implants (P < 0.0001). Average trabeculation of newly formed bone in the defect after healing was significantly greater for HA-coated implants than for titanium (P < 0.0001), while the effect on trabeculation between treatments was not significantly different (P = 0.14). Finally, there were significantly less residual allograft particles in defect areas adjacent to HA-coated implants than Ti implants (P = 0.0355). The use of HA-coated implants in large size defects with DFDBA and ePTFE membranes produced significantly more osseointegration histologically than other treatment options and more than Ti implants with the same treatment combinations. The results of this study indicate that, although the implants appeared osseointegrated clinically after 4 months of healing, histologic data suggest that selection of both the implant type and the treatment modality is important in obtaining optimum osseointegration in large size defects.     

Clinical and microbiological status of osseointegrated implants

Peri-implantitis, an inflammatory response around implants, has a poorly defined etiology and pathogenesis. To better understand the role of specific microorganisms in this disease process, clinical and microbiological parameters were examined in 24 patients with 98 osseointegrated implants. Sites were evaluated for probing depth (PD), plaque/calculus index (PI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), mobility, and crevicular fluid flow rate (CFFR). Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Prevotella intermedia in subgingival plaque were identified by latex agglutination assays. Clinically, a statistically significant correlation (P < 0.001) was observed between probing depth and the length of time an implant was present. Mobility was also significantly greater (P < 0.001) in the maxillary than in the mandibular implants. Subgingival sites harboring one of the three microorganisms had significantly greater PD, GBI, and CFFR than non-colonized sites. Implants in partially edentulous patients more frequently were colonized with P. gingivalis/P. intermedia than edentulous patients. The incidence of these microorganisms also correlated with fixture longevity. Implants present for 3 to 4 years had a significantly greater frequency of test microorganisms than implants present for 1 to 2 years. These findings suggest that microbial pathogens associated with periodontitis occur more commonly around implants exhibiting gingival inflammation (GBI) and may contribute to peri-implantitis.     

Altered patterns of DNA methylation on chromosomes from leukemia cell lines: identification of 5-methylcytosines by indirect immunodetection

The feasibility of implant treatment in patients after oral ablative tumor surgery has not yet been investigated with consideration of the requisite high periodontal standards. A report on this topic has to deal not only with implant survival but also with implant health, bone response, soft tissue health, failure pattern, time of failure, and ease of restoration. For the assessment of an implant system, an overview must be accomplished that takes into account the different restorations used and their interaction with the implant system that was used. This study presents the Bone-Lock implant system (Howmedica Leibinger GmbH, Freiburg, Germany) in a retrospective investigation after 5 years of follow-up with special emphasis on the prosthetic restorations used following resection of oral malignancies. From early in 1990 through June 1996, we inserted 210 dental endosteal Bone-Lock implants (58 patients) after oral tumor resectioning. Included in the study were 45 patients with 162 implants and prosthetic restorations that had been loaded for 1 year (dentures retained by telescopic or bar-clip or ball attachments, implant-supported prostheses, tooth-to-implant connected bridges). Regular follow-up consisted of evaluation of the Plaque Index (Silness and L?e) and of the Sulcus Bleeding Index (L?e), measurements of pocket probing depth, implant mobility (by means of the Periotest method), bone resorption (according to X-ray findings), and a questionnaire that registered patient satisfaction. The results were evaluated for each restoration and were compared with baseline standards. The overall 5-year survival rate was 83.2%. For implants that had been in place for over 365 days, the survival rate was 93%. The investigation showed that after resection of oral malignancies, patients could be treated with dental implants and superstructures with long-term efficacy similar to that found in healthy subjects considering internationally accepted standards. Implant treatment in tumor patients appeared to offer the most positive periodontic results when use of bar-clip or telescope-retained overdentures was involved. The patient satisfaction level with the described prosthodontic treatment was satisfactory.     

Primary diffusely infiltrative adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum

In this study, patient opinion on oral rehabilitation by means of Br?nemark implants was investigated. All patients were referred to a periodontal clinic for implant installation and treated by one and the same operator. Prosthetic restorations were performed by dentists, who had no previous experience with prostheses on implants, but had completed a postgraduate training course. Patient opinion was obtained through questionnaires, pertaining to satisfaction and oral function. A comparison was made between pre-implant situation, short-term (< 4 months) and long-term functioning (3 years) with the implant-restorative rehabilitation. In total, 61 patients participated in the study; 23 received a full lower arch bridge and 18 a full upper arch bridge, while 20 patients got partial bridges. Of 298 installed implants, 7 failed at abutment connection (2.3%) and 1 during the 3-year follow-up interval (0.3%). The study results indicated that a great majority of patients were very satisfied with the treatment. Comfort with eating, aesthetics, phonetics and overall satisfaction improved significantly and nearly all patients said that they would undergo the treatment again or recommend it to others. Patients experienced their implants as "natural" teeth. The conclusion is that rehabilitation ad modum Br?nemark, even in the hands of non-specialized dentists, can be of high quality, improving oral function and satisfying the needs and demands of patients.