Premature exposure of dental implant cover screws. A retrospective evaluation of risk factors and influence on marginal peri-implant bone level changes

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 2109-2122
Author(s):  
Moritz Hertel ◽  
Yun-Chie Roh ◽  
Konrad Neumann ◽  
Frank Peter Strietzel
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Retrospective Evaluation ◽  
Bone Level

scholarly journals Long-term retrospective evaluation of short dental implant success and associated risk factors

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 370-370
Author(s):  
Guzin Neda Erbasar Hasanoglu ◽  
Ramiz Can Erbasar ◽  
Turgay Peyami Hocaoglu
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Retrospective Evaluation ◽  
Associated Risk Factors

Risk Factors for Dental Implant Failure: A Strategy for the Analysis of Clustered Failure-time Observations

2002 ◽  
Vol 81 (8) ◽  
pp. 572-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.K. Chuang ◽  
L.J. Wei ◽  
C.W. Douglass ◽  
T.B. Dodson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Failure Time ◽  
Implant Failure

Should the quality of glycemic control guide dental implant therapy in patients with diabetes? Focus on implant survival

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalia Nourah ◽  
Salwa Aldahlawi ◽  
Sebastiano Andreana
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Good Glycemic Control ◽  
Implant Therapy

Introduction: Optimal glycemic control is crucial to dental implant long-term functional and esthetic success. Despite HbA1c levels of 7% or lower used as an indicator for good glycemic control, however, this level may not be attainable for all diabetic patients. Most dentists do not consider patients with poor glycemic control candidates for implant therapy due to higher implant failure, infection or other complications. Aim: This review challenges the concept of one size fits all and aims to critically appraise the evidence for the success or failure rate of dental implants and peri-implant health outcomes in patients with less-than-optimal glycemic control. Discussion: Evidence suggests that estimating glycemic control from HbA1c measurement alone is misleading. Moreover, elevated preoperative HbA1c was not associated with increased mortality and morbidity after major surgical procedures. Literature for the survival or success of implants in diabetic patients is inconsistent due to a lack of standardized reporting of clinical data collection and outcomes. While a number of studies report that implant treatment in patients with well-controlled diabetes has a similar success rate to healthy individuals, other studies suggest that the quality of glycemic control in diabetic patients does not make a difference in the implant failure rate or marginal bone loss. This discrepancy could indicate that risk factors other than hyperglycemia may contribute to the survival of implants in diabetic patients. Conclusion: In the era of personalized medicine, the clinician should utilize individualized information and analyze all risk factors to provide the patient with evidence-based treatment options.

scholarly journals Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. e0216428 ◽  
Author(s):  
László Márk Czumbel ◽  
Beáta Kerémi ◽  
Noémi Gede ◽  
Alexandra Mikó ◽  
Barbara Tóth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Marginal Bone Level

scholarly journals Al2O3 Particles on Titanium Dental Implant Systems following Sandblasting and Acid-Etching Process

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Schupbach ◽  
Roland Glauser ◽  
Sebastian Bauer
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Sem Analysis ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Mean Size ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Titanium Dental Implant ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Particle Counts ◽  
Size Of Particles ◽  
Implant System

Dental implants with moderately rough surfaces show enhanced osseointegration and faster bone healing compared with machined surfaces. The sandblasting and acid-etching (SA) process is one technique to create moderately rough dental implant surfaces. The purpose of this study was to analyse different commercially available implant systems with a SA-modified surface and to explore the widespread notion that they have similar surface properties regarding morphology and cleanliness. SA-modified surfaces of nine implant systems manufactured by Alpha-Bio Tec Ltd, Camlog Biotechnologies AG, Dentsply Sirona Dental GmbH, Neoss Ltd, Osstem Implant Co. Ltd, Institute Straumann AG, and Thommen Medical AG were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) and examined for surface cleanliness. Six implants from three different lots were selected per each implant system. Mean particle counts for each implant and the mean size of the particles were calculated from three different regions of interest and compared using ANOVA and Tukey’s test. SEM analysis showed presence of particles on the majority of analyzed implant surfaces, and EDX evaluations determined that the particles were made of Al2O3 and thus remnants of the blasting process. SPI®ELEMENT INICELL® and Bone Level (BL) Roxolid® SLActive® implant surfaces showed the highest mean particle counts, 46.6 and 50.3 per area, respectively. The surface of BL Roxolid® SLActive® implant also showed the highest variations in the particle counts, even in samples from the same lot. The mean size of particles was 1120±1011 μm2, measured for USIII CA Fixture implants, while the biggest particle was 5900 μm2 found on a BL Roxolid® SLActive® implant. These results suggest that not all manufacturers are able to produce implant surfaces without particle contamination and highlight that the surface modification process with the SA technique should be appropriately designed and controlled to achieve a clean and consistent final medical device.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document