Literature DB >> 16634498

The importance of implant surface characteristics in the replacement of failed implants.

Ghada Alsaadi1, Marc Quirynen, Daniel van Steenberghe.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare the failure rates of implants with either a machined surface or a TiUnite surface used to replace failing implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of 578 patients, ie, of all patients who were treated at the Department of Periodontology of the University Hospital in Leuven by means of oral implants during 3 recent consecutive years, were analyzed. The implants included in the study had an observation time ranging from 9 to 49 months. All patients had been provided with Brånemark System implants. Only 2 types of implant surfaces were used: machined and TiUnite. Data collection and analysis focused on the replacement implants, ie, implants placed at sites where the original implants had failed. Data were statistically analyzed by means of Statistica for Windows Software version 5.1; a Fisher exact P test was used. The level of significance was set at P = .05.
RESULTS: A total of 41 patients experienced the nonintegration of 58 implants. Of those, 29 implants with a machined surface were replaced by implants with the same surface. Six of the replacement implants failed. Nineteen machined-surface implants were replaced by TiUnite surface implants; 1 failed. Ten TiUnite-surface implants were replaced by implants with the same surface; none failed. The difference in failure rate between machined-surface replacement implants and TiUnite replacement implants was statistically significant (P = .05). DISCUSSION: In addition to the usual patient-related compromising factors, replacement of a failing implant involves the challenge of achieving osseointegration in a nonpristine bone site. In the present study, implants with TiUnite surfaces were associated with fewer failures than machined-surface implants under the same conditions.
CONCLUSION: An improved implant surface such as TiUnite may offer a better prognosis when a failed implant has to be replaced at the same site.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16634498

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  7 in total

1.  Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants in Maxilla and Mandible: One Year Prospective Clinical Study.

Authors:  Muhamed Ajanović; Adis Hamzić; Sead Redžepagić; Alma Kamber-Ćesir; Lejla Kazazić; Selma Tosum
Journal:  Acta Stomatol Croat       Date:  2015-06

2.  Development of a new preclinical model to study early implant loss: a validation study in the beagle dog.

Authors:  Antonio Liñares; Raul Verdeja; Benjamin Pippenger; Fernando Muñoz; Mónica López-Peña; Juan Blanco
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 3.606

3.  Dental Implants in Patients with Oral Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic; Aline Fernanda Cruz; Ricardo Trindade; Ricardo Santiago Gomez
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 2.430

Review 4.  Treatment Alternatives to Negotiate Peri-Implantitis.

Authors:  Eli E Machtei
Journal:  Adv Med       Date:  2014-06-15

Review 5.  Dealing with dental implant failures.

Authors:  Liran Levin
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.698

6.  The Effect of Cigarette Smoking on the Therapeutic Success of Dental Implants.

Authors:  Piotr Koszuta; Agnieszka Grafka; Agnieszka Koszuta; Maciej Łopucki; Jolanta Szymańska
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.429

Review 7.  Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers.

Authors:  Alex Solderer; Adrian Al-Jazrawi; Philipp Sahrmann; Ronald Jung; Thomas Attin; Patrick R Schmidlin
Journal:  Clin Exp Dent Res       Date:  2019-08-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.