What Factors Are Associated With Implant Failure?

Indications and Regenerative Techniques for Lateral Window Sinus Floor Elevation With Ridge Augmentation

Maxillary sinus elevation is a critical procedure in dental implantology, often necessary to address bone deficiencies in the posterior maxilla. However, various medical conditions, local factors, and surgical complexities can significantly influence the outcomes. This article delves into the implications of systemic conditions such as smoking, diabetes, osteoporosis, antiresorptive and antiangiogenic medications, radiotherapy, immunocompromised states, cardiovascular diseases, chronic alcoholism, and oxidative stress on sinus floor elevation and associated dental implant placements. Each condition presents unique challenges and necessitates tailored clinical considerations to mitigate risks and enhance surgical success. A comprehensive pre-operative assessment is essential, including detailed patient history and radiographic evaluation. Local conditions affecting the maxillary sinus, such as sinusitis, require careful examination and possible otolaryngologist consultation. The article discusses a standardized Digital Surgical Planning (DSP) protocol involving CBCT imaging, intraoral scans, virtual diagnostic wax-ups, and guided implant placement to optimize surgical planning and outcomes. Surgical techniques for lateral window antrostomy are examined, including flap design, window size and location, and piezoelectric and rotary instrumentation. Subsequent regenerative procedures involve meticulous membrane elevation and particulate graft placement, with considerations for graft material and technique to ensure stability and volume retention. Post-operative care, encompassing antibiotic prophylaxis, corticosteroid use, and decongestants, is outlined to prevent infections and manage edema. Conclusively, the article stresses the necessity for implantologists to be proficient in various techniques and make evidence-based decisions tailored to individual patient needs, ensuring optimal implant therapy outcomes. The lateral window approach remains a cornerstone of regenerative dental procedures, maintaining its significance through evolving methodologies and clinical advances. The lateral window sinus elevation procedure has demonstrated consistent success as a pre-prosthetic surgical intervention for over four decades, supported by multiple reviews. Initially a hospital-based procedure requiring autogenous bone harvesting, it has evolved into a minimally invasive, office-based procedure without the need for donor bone. Smaller access windows and flaps have further reduced morbidity. Despite the emergence of less invasive techniques such as the transcrestal approach and the use of tilted or short implants, the lateral window procedure remains relevant due to its unique advantages: Provides greater access to overcome obstacles like septa. Facilitates single-surgery management of multiple implant sites. Remains applicable regardless of residual crestal bone height. Allows intraoperative management of complications such as membrane perforations.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors May Increase Implant Failure

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving dental implants may take selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). There may be an association with taking an SSRI at implant placement and implant failure.

PURPOSE

The study's purpose was to estimate the association between SSIR exposure and implant failure.

STUDY DESIGN

The study design was a retrospective cohort study. The sample was patients who received dental implants between December 1, 2007, and February 29, 2020. Patients were excluded if the follow-up was <12 months.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

The predictor variable was SSRI exposure at the time of implant placement coded as exposed or not exposed.

OUTCOME VARIABLE

The primary outcome variable was implant status at 1 year, coded as survived or failed.

COVARIATES

The covariates were age, sex, and implant location and per subject, and comorbidities included smoking, diabetes, osteoporosis, and frailty.

ANALYSES

Bivariate statistics assessed the association between SSRI exposure at the time of implant placement and failure with significance at P value < .05.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 1,611 subjects (mean age 57.3 ± 15.8 years, 893 (55.4%) females) with 3,184 implants placed. There were 1,514 (94%) subjects who did not take an SSRI at implant placement (mean age 57.5 ± 15.5 years, 813 (53.7%) females) and there were 97 (6%) subjects who did take an SSRI at implant placement (mean age 61.6 ± 13.1 years, 80 (82.5%) females). The failure rate was 6.7% (101 subjects) for non-SSRI exposed subjects and 18.6% (18 subjects) who took an SSRI at implant placement. SSRI exposure was associated with implant failure at 1-year relative risk = 2.8; 1.8-4.4 (relative risk, 95% confidence interval). Covariates with association with failure: smoking odds ratio (OR) = 0.98, 1.5-5.5 (OR, 95% confidence limits, P < .0001), diabetes (OR = 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI], P = .048), alcohol (OR = 1.9, 95% CI, P = .045), osteoporosis (OR = 14.1, 95% CI, P < .0001), debilitation (OR = 20.7, 95% CI, P < .0001), and bisphosphonates (OR = 0.09, 95% CI, P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who take SSRI at the time of implant surgery may have an increased risk for implant failure.

Stackable Guides: Digital Workflows for Full Arch Dental Implant Rehabilitation

Computer-guided full-arch dental rehabilitation, which is highly technique-sensitive, benefits from advancements in 3-dimensional-printed guides and open-source software. Critical pre-surgical planning includes patient selection, health history evaluations, and detailed imaging like cone beam computed tomography scans. Various surgical guides-freehand, static, dynamic, stackable, and interchangeable-are used based on case complexity, with stackable guides improving workflow efficiency. Post-operative care involves verifying prosthesis occlusion and clear patient instructions, focusing on mitigating complications through thorough planning. Future enhancements in implant planning and guide design are expected with the integration of artificial intelligence into digital workflows.

Immediate implant placement in compromised extraction sockets using vestibular socket therapy with acellular dermal matrix versus connective tissue grafts in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Immediate implant placement (IIP) in compromised extraction sockets poses significant challenges in maintaining the contour and level of mucosal tissues. This study compares the efficacy of vestibular socket therapy (VST) combined with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) versus connective tissue grafts (CTG) in IIP within the esthetic zone.

METHODS

Twenty participants requiring extraction in the maxillary esthetic zone were randomized into two groups: ADM and CTG (n = 10 each). Both groups underwent VST with bone grafting and dental implant placement. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, measuring soft-tissue level and thicknesses, and the radiographic facial alveolar bone thicknesses and height.

RESULTS

Both groups resulted in statistically significant increase in coronal mucosal thickness, facial bone height and thickness over time. CTG showed statistically significant increase at apical mucosal thickness over time, whereas the ADM group had a significantly higher facial bone height after 12 months. No significant differences were observed between groups in mucosal thickness and level at any time point and both groups achieved 100% implant survival.

CONCLUSION

ADM and CTG are both effective for soft tissue augmentation and hard-tissue maintenance in IIP within compromised extraction sockets after 12 months. CTG may offer advantages in apical mucosal thickness, while ADM was associated with greater bone height.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Both ADM and CTG effectively enhance soft tissue and maintain hard-tissue levels, with CTG providing better apical mucosal thickness and ADM resulting in greater facial bone height after 12 months. These insights help clinicians to customize treatment plans based on individual goals and patient needs.

The Effects of Smoking on Dental Implant Failure: A Current Literature Update

Background: This systematic review assesses the current literature (2020-2024) evaluating the impact of smoking on dental implant failure rates. Methods: A non-funded Pubmed database review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and the results were tabulated to extract the study design, patient characteristics, follow-up time, comparison, outcome, and strengths and weaknesses, including risk of bias. This review included 33 studies with 29,519 implants placed in over 18,301 patients. We included prospective and retrospective clinical studies, randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and observational studies that examined smoking's effects on implant failure rates. Studies had to classify individuals into two groups, smokers and non-smokers, with at least ten implants. Exclusions included reviews, case reports, experimental studies, guidelines, non-English publications, studies lacking comparative data on failure rates, those excluding smokers, and studies focusing on head and neck cancer patients or specialized implants. Results: Our findings indicate a significant correlation in 25 out of 33 studies between smoking and increased implant failure rates, affecting both early and late stages of implant integration and survival as well as revealing a dose-response relationship, with higher daily cigarette consumption significantly increasing the risk of implant failure. Conclusions: This review highlights the importance of smoking cessation efforts, patient education, and tailored patient care in dental implantology. Future research should explore the effects of smoking frequency and alternative tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, aiming to improve success rates among smokers.

Transitioning From Teeth to Implants: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

Patients may need removal of their teeth with placement of implants for rehabilitation. The clinical problem is the status of the remaining teeth and how this affects the timing for implant placement and the method for provisionalization. The importance of this review is to document the different strategies including sequential tooth removal and grafting and the use of teeth to provide a fixed provisional rather than a removable provisional, to provide surgeons with a reference to maintain patient function during their rehabilitation.

METHODS

Pubmed.gov was the information source. Years reviewed included 1990 to 2022. Inclusion criteria included only articles in peer-reviewed journals. Variables evaluated included the success for placing implants immediately into extraction sites, and the methods to transition between steps in their rehabilitation. Data collected were results of systematic reviews and independent clinical series, as well as case reports of prosthetic methods for transitioning.

RESULTS

The search used terms which included implants in extraction sites (n = 205) and transitioning teeth to implants (n = 153). Twenty-one articles were reviewed involving extraction sites and 19 articles reviewed concerning transitioning from teeth to implants. The placement of implants immediately into excretion sites did have a relative risk for failure compared to implant placement in healed sites. The use of non-restorable teeth to support a fixed provisional prosthesis was successful; however, variability in reporting prevented a statistical analysis.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon needs to utilize teeth to provide support during treatment phases in order to provide the patient with a fixed provisional prosthesis to allow for implant integration and to provide time for graft healing. Specific methods used for transitioning do not have a significant evidence base to recommend one method but routine prosthetic techniques have been used and are reported in case reports.

Are Allergy-Induced Implant Failures Actually Hypersensitivity Reactions to Titanium? A Literature Review

PURPOSE

This literature review was performed to assess whether implant failures are associated with titanium allergy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases up to April 2021 was conducted, and the obtained articles were independently assessed by two reviewers. Articles describing cases of implant failure in which the cause of implant failure was only identified as allergy were included.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. Eight studies identified Ti allergy by clinical examinations, of which four used patch tests, three used the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT)/memory lymphocyte immunostimulation assay (MELISA), and one used both tests. Nine studies reported cases of titanium hypersensitivity in combination with other systemic allergy-related disorders, with eight cases also showing positive results for Ni, Hg, Cr, and Co hypersensitivity. Ten papers reported the improvement of symptoms after the removal of the Ti implants and their replacement with zirconia implants, and two of these papers showed good results.

CONCLUSION

Cases of probable titanium allergy included those with true titanium allergies and those with a potentially different cause. However, the differentiation of these cases is difficult. Since no definitive method has been established for diagnosing titanium allergy, a comprehensive diagnosis based on the clinical course and clinical examination using a patch test/LTT/MELISA is necessary. Implant treatment should be performed with caution in patients with any preoperative allergies.

Analyzing the Causes and Frequency of Early Dental Implant Failure among Iranians: An Epidemiological Study

Aim

The rate of early dental implant failure (DIF) has increased in recent years, though the risk factors associated with this primary failure remain unclear. This study aimed to determine the rate of early implant failure and identify contributing factors. It was conducted from March 2018 to 2020 in Mashhad, Iran.

Method

This observational study examined the records of 983 implants from the Implant Department of Mashhad Dental School. Variables considered included age, gender, systemic diseases, smoking habits, implant type and size, and surgery-related factors. Data were analyzed using Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher exact tests in SPSS V22, with a p-value of 0.05 or less considered statistically significant.

Result

Of the 983 implants, 42 (4.3%) experienced early failure. The study population consisted of 555 (56.5%) females and 428 (43.5%) males, with an average age of 49.34 ± 13.67 years. A significant correlation was found between surgical complications (e.g., fracture of implant fixtures and inferior alveolar nerve exposure) and implant loading time (Yes or No) with early DIF (p=0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). However, no significant correlation was observed between early failure and factors such as age, gender, smoking habits, systemic diseases, implant dimensions, or manufacturer.

Conclusion

Surgical complications and loading time may be the most critical factors contributing to early implant failure. Therefore, we suggest dentists pay attention to the mentioned factors in the surgical protocols and their relationship. Further prospective studies on risk factors that could affect early implant failure are needed.

Maxillary Full Arch Restorations - Biological Complications: A Narrative Review Outlining Criteria for Long Term Success

PURPOSE

Patients receiving full arch implant borne maxillary prostheses require functional, esthetic, and long term success. The importance of this review is to document the difficulty with implant maintenance, the prevalence of peri-implant disease, and the improvement in biologic health when using a prosthesis that can be maintained to minimize plaque. The objective is to provide surgeons with a reference to optimize surgical procedures that can result in improved hygiene and long term maintenance, as well as acceptable functional and esthetic goals.

METHODS

Pubmed.gov was the information source. Years reviewed included 1990-2022. Inclusion criteria included only articles in journals referenced in pubmed.gov. The reports excluded were case reports, reports that only included implant survival, and articles without a statistical analysis to generate meaningful conclusions. Biological complications included bone loss, hygiene difficulty, mucositis and recession, the incidence of peri-implantitis, and how complications related to patient co-morbidities. Data collected included outcomes of the study including statistical significance.

RESULTS

The search identified articles for review using terms which included full arch maxillary restorations (n = 736), long term success with full arch maxillary prostheses (n = 22), ceramic full arch restorations (n = 102), and complications with full arch restorations (n = 231). From this search, 53 articles were collated that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Factors found to be significant contributors to biological complications included bone loss and peri-implant disease, difficulty with daily hygiene access, plaque and biofilm coverage, and the need for continued maintenance for long term implant health.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon needs to place implants to allow a full arch maxillary prosthesis to be fabricated with full access to the implants for maintenance, which should decrease the incidence of biological complications. With excellent maintenance full arch implant restorations can have limited peri-implant disease.

Avoiding implant-related complications in medically compromised patients with or without unhealthy lifestyle/Elevated oxidative stress

Increased human life expectancy broadens the alternatives for missing teeth and played a role in the widespread use of dental implants and related augmentation procedures for the aging population. Though, many of these patients may have one or more diseases. These systemic conditions may directly lead to surgical complications, compromise implant/bone healing, or influence long-term peri-implant health and its response to biologic nuisances. Offering patients credible expectations regarding intra- and postoperative complications and therapeutic prognosis is an ethical and legal obligation. Clear identification of potential types of adverse effects, complications, or errors is important for decision-making processes as they may be related to different local, systemic, and technical aspects. Therefore, the present review structures the underlying biological mechanisms, clinical evidence, and clinical recommendations for the most common systemic risk factors for implant-related complications.

Effect of mechanical instrumentation with adjunct photodynamic therapy on salivary TNFα levels and clinical periodontal and peri‑implant status in patients with depression: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present randomized controlled trial was to assess the effect of mechanical instrumentation (MI) with adjunct photodynamic therapy (PDT) on salivary tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) levels and clinical periodontal and peri‑implant status in patients with depression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In groups 1 and 2, individuals with periodontal and peri‑implant diseases with and without depression, respectively were included. Group-3 comprised of systemically healthy individuals with a healthy periodontal and peri‑implant status. In groups 1 and 2, patients in the test- and control groups received MI with and without PDT respectively. Periodontal and peri‑implant probing depth and plaque and gingival indices were measured. Radiographic evaluation was done at baseline. Whole salivary tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) in peri‑implant sulcular fluid were measured at baseline. The clinical and immunological parameters were reassessed at 120 days' follow-up. Level of significance was set at P<0.05.

RESULTS

Thirty-four, 36 and 37 implants were in function in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At baseline, periodontal and peri‑implant clinical parameters and TNFα levels were significantly higher in groups 1 (P<0.05) and 2 (P<0.05) than Group-3. At 4-months follow-up, there was no difference in periodontal and peri‑implant clinical parameters in the test- and control groups among individuals in groups 1 and 3. In Group-2, there was a significant reduction in periodontal (P<0.05) and peri‑implant (P<0.05) clinical parameters at 4-months follow-up than baseline. In Group-2, there was no significant difference in these parameters among patients in the test- and control-groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with depression clinical periodontal and peri‑implant status is poorer and salivary TNFα levels are higher after MI with or without PDT. In healthy patients, PDT offers no additional benefits in the treatment of periodontal inflammation.

Survival Rates and Factors Affecting the Outcome Following Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study

Background: Immediate implant placement into extraction sockets has become a widely acceptable treatment option to decrease treatment time and enhance esthetics. The objectives of this study were to assess and compare the survival rates of immediate and delayed implant treatment as well as to investigate the effect of patient- and site-related variables on the treatment outcome in a large-scale population-based study. Methods: Dental records of patients who received implant therapy were retrieved from the electronic records of the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry. Demographic characteristics, dental insurance status, socioeconomic status as well as medical history and tobacco use were recorded. The treatment outcome was included as a binary variable (survival/failure). Time to failure (date of procedure to date of visit with failure) was compared between immediate and delayed implant treatment in Cox regression models. Kaplan−Meier plots for the survival of both treatment modalities were created. Patient-sites without failure were censored at the last follow-up visit. Results: A total of 4519 records of implants were included. The sample mean age was 60.27 years and included 50.7% males and 12.9% tobacco users. High socioeconomic status was characterized for 82.3% of the included population and 63.0% of them were self-payers. Immediate implants were significantly more frequently placed in the maxillary arch (p < 0.001) than in the mandible. Tobacco users received more often a delayed rather than an immediate implant placement (p = 0.001). The survival rate analysis revealed there were no significant differences between immediate and delayed implant placements (p = 0.48). The mean follow-up time was 32.27 months during which 1.5% immediate and 1.1% delayed implants were removed. The estimated mean survival time for immediate implants was 68.90 months, while delayed implants placed in healed sockets showed a mean survival time of 75.11 months. A statistically significant association was found between gender (p = 0.03) and osteoporosis (p = 0.001) with treatment outcome. Conclusions: The placement of immediate implants achieved similarly high survival rates when compared to delayed implants placed in healed sites. Males and osteoporotic individuals showed significantly higher implant failure than females and non-osteoporotic patients. This study demonstrated that both immediate and delayed implant placements are sound options with predictable treatment outcome.

Retrospective Study of Biohorizons® Implants Placed by Postgraduate Students at the University of Barcelona

The study aimed to evaluate the survival and failure rate, in the short- and medium-term, in addition to its relationship with risk factors, in implants placed by postgraduate students of the Master of Medicine, Surgery, and Oral Implantology course from the University of Barcelona. The study was designed including 192 patients with 422 implants placed between 2015 and 2018. Variables of implant failure were evaluated and related. Failure was split into early failure and late failure. Qualitative data were compared using the chi-squared test, taking p ≤ 0.05 as a significant value. The comparison of quantitative variables was carried out using the Student’s t-test for independent samples. The survival rate in a period of 6 months to 3 years was 97.87%. The mean age of the patients was (54.5 ± 13), and the largest number of implants were placed in the 51–60 age range. The failure rate was 2.13% (N = 9), 6 failed early and 3 failed after definitive prosthetic loading, with a p value < 0.0001. When comparing the failures according to their location in the anterior/posterior sector of the arch, the anterior sector showed statistically significant results (p = 0.027). Failed implants had a statistically significant relationship when they were placed in the anterior sector and were performed in the early stage.

Is Penicillin Allergy a Risk Factor for Early Dental Implant Failure? A Systematic Review

The prescription of preventive antibiotics in dental implant treatments reduces the incidence of early failures. This study has focused mainly on the influence of amoxicillin, which is contraindicated in penicillin-allergic patients. The present systematic review aimed to determine whether penicillin-allergic patients have a higher risk of implant failure compared to non-allergic patients. An electronic search was performed on Medline and Web of Science using the following MeSH terms: (penicillin allergy OR clindamycin OR erythromycin OR azithromycin OR metronidazole) AND (dental implant OR dental implant failure OR dental implant complications). The criteria employed were those described in the PRISMA^® Declaration. Only five articles were included that analyzed the failure rates of implants placed in penicillin-allergic patients who were prescribed clindamycin compared to non-allergic patients who were prescribed amoxicillin. With the limitations of this study, it is not possible to state that penicillin allergy per se constitutes a risk factor for early dental implant failure as most of the studies included self-reported allergic patients. Clindamycin has been associated with a significantly elevated risk of failure and an up to six times increased risk of infection. Immediate implants also have a 5.7 to 10 times higher risk of failure.

Is Penicillin Allergy a Risk Factor for Surgical Site Infection After Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?

PURPOSE

The selection of perioperative antibiotics for prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) is often limited by the presence of a reported penicillin allergy. The purpose of this study was to determine if oral and maxillofacial surgery patients who report allergy to penicillin are at an increased risk of developing SSI.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who underwent oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures in the operating room setting at a single institution between 2011 and 2018. The following categories of procedures were investigated: dentoalveolar, orthognathic, orthognathic with third molar extraction, pathology and reconstruction, and temporomandibular joint. The primary predictor and outcome variables were reported penicillin allergy and surgical site infection, respectively. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed. P < .05 was considered to be significant.

RESULTS

The cohort was composed of 2,058 patients of which 318 (15.5%) reported allergy to penicillin. Beta-lactam antibiotics were administered less frequently to penicillin allergic patients perioperatively compared with those without penicillin allergy (7.9 vs 97.1%, P < .001), while clindamycin was more commonly administered (76.4 vs 2.5%, P < .001). Clindamycin was associated with a higher SSI rate compared with beta-lactam antibiotics (5.6 vs 1.4%, P < .001). Penicillin allergy was significantly associated with SSI at an adjusted odds ratio of 2.61 (95% CI 1.51 to 4.49, P = .001). After holding perioperative antibiotic usage equal between the 2 groups, penicillin allergy per se was no longer associated with SSI (P = .901), suggesting that the outcome was mediated by antibiotic selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Penicillin allergy was associated with development of SSI due to receipt of non-beta-lactam antibiotics as perioperative prophylaxis. Formal allergy evaluation should be considered for patients with putative penicillin allergy.