Literature DB >> 29210188

Factors influencing the fracture of dental implants.

Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic1, Jenö Kisch2, Tomas Albrektsson1,3, Ann Wennerberg4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implant fractures are rare but offer a challenging clinical situation.
PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of implant fracture and the possible risk factors predisposing an implant to a higher fracture risk.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study is based on 2670 patients consecutively treated with implant-supported prostheses. Anatomical-, patient-, and implant-related factors were collected. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were performed. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) evaluated the effect of explanatory variables on implant fracture.
RESULTS: Forty-four implants (out of 10 099; 0.44%) fractured. The mean ± standard deviation time for fracture to occur was 95.1 ± 58.5 months (min-max, 3.8-294.7). Half of the occurrences of fracture happened between 2 and 8 years after implantation. Five factors had a statistically significant influence on the fracture of implants (increase/decrease in fracture probability): use of higher grades of titanium (decrease 72.9%), bruxism (increase 1819.5%), direct adjacency to cantilever (increase 247.6%), every 1 mm increase in implant length (increase 22.3%), every 1 mm increase in implant diameter (decrease 96.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that 5 factors could influence the incidence of implant fractures: grade of titanium, implant diameter and length, cantilever, bruxism.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  higher grades of Ti; implant fracture; logistic models; multivariate analysis; risk factors

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29210188     DOI: 10.1111/cid.12572

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res        ISSN: 1523-0899            Impact factor:   3.932


  8 in total

1.  Complete mechanical characterization of an external hexagonal implant connection: in vitro study, 3D FEM, and probabilistic fatigue.

Authors:  María Prados-Privado; Sérgio A Gehrke; Rosa Rojo; Juan Carlos Prados-Frutos
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  [Clinical classification and treatment decision of implant fracture].

Authors:  Y Li; H J Yu; L X Qiu
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2022-02-18

3.  Osteotomy combined with the trephine technique for invisible implant fracture: A case report.

Authors:  Liang-Wen Chen; Min Wang; Hai-Bin Xia; Dong Chen
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 1.534

4.  Stability of Cantilever Fixed Dental Prostheses on Zirconia Implants.

Authors:  Nadja Rohr; Reto Nüesch; Rebecca Greune; Gino Mainetti; Sabrina Karlin; Lucia K Zaugg; Nicola U Zitzmann
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 3.748

5.  Tissue Surface Adaptation and Clinical Performance of CAD-CAM Milled versus Conventional Implant-Assisted Mandibular Overdenture.

Authors:  Noha H El-Shaheed; Hanadi A Lamfon; Rabab I Salama; Amira Mohammed Gomaa Faramawy; Aisha Zakaria Hashem Mostafa
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2022-06-16

6.  Microstructural Analysis of Fractured Orthopedic Implants.

Authors:  Mateusz Kopec; Adam Brodecki; Grzegorz Szczęsny; Zbigniew L Kowalewski
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-25       Impact factor: 3.623

7.  Fractures of implant fixtures: a retroscccpective clinical study.

Authors:  Han-Chang Yu; Young-Kyun Kim
Journal:  Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2020-04-25

8.  Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Hadas Heller; David Sreter; Adi Arieli; Ilan Beitlitum; Raphael Pilo; Shifra Levartovsky
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 3.623

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.