One of the key factors in implant failure is age. Older people have worse local bone problems and a longer possible healing time, and they are. Dental implant failure is not common, but it can occur due to several factors. One of the most common reasons why implants fail is peri-implantitis.
This condition is almost similar to gum disease. Due to poor oral hygiene or the constant accumulation of plaque, the gums surrounding the implant become inflamed. As a result, harmful oral bacteria can spread below the gum line and attack the tissues surrounding the implant posts. The most common cause of dental implant failure is an infection called peri-implantitis.
It occurs when bacteria attack the tissue surrounding an implant. Over time, the infection can cause so much damage that the mouth can no longer support dental implants in New Haven. Oral hygiene errors are often the main contributing factors to peri-implantitis, but other factors can also cause it. Problems during the initial placement of the implant can also undermine success.
Surgical complications, such as nerve damage, abnormal position, inadequate primary stability, or early infection, often cause implants to fail later. That's why working with an experienced implant dentist in Bloomington, who is familiar with the complexities of these procedures, is vital to minimize the risks of the procedure. One of the most common causes of dental implant failure is periodontal or gum disease. Periimplant disease can occur when bacteria enter below the gum line and cause an infection.
If the bacterial infection is left untreated, it can eventually lead to poor dental health, bone loss and implant failure. It's important to keep in mind that everyone experiences pain differently, and what may be severe pain for one person may be only mild discomfort for another. With that said, dental implants are generally not considered to be too painful. An official website of the United States government They use official websites.gov A.
The gov website belongs to an official government organization of the United States. Implantation sites could play an influential role in the emergence of the FEI. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to analyze high-quality studies to determine if there is a correlation between early failure and the site of implantation. Is there a correlation between the site of implantation (anterior maxilla, posterior maxilla, anterior mandibular, or posterior mandibular) and the EIF? All abstracts and full articles were reviewed and the following inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied.
The studies chosen met the criteria of retrospective, prospective and randomized clinical trials; all age groups; both sexes; all types of implants inserted in the perforated site or after using an osteotome; all patients, regardless of their smoking and the use of antibiotics. The studies that were excluded from the analysis were those of cadavers, animals, patients with systemic problems affecting bone density or mineralization, patients being treated with corticosteroids or bisphosphonates, who reported failures after prosthetic fixation, implantation in grafted sites, or after paranasal sinus lift procedures. The extracted data is shown in a table and includes the authors, the year of publication, the type of study, the site of implantation, the number of implants, the number of failed implants and the power of the study. Most of the included studies were retrospective. Randomized or blinded studies were impossible, and studies with a small sample size or an inadequate methodology were rejected.
The heterogeneity test was carried out based on heterogeneity and the degree of inconsistency of the treatment effects (I) was measured in all the trials. Heterogeneity was considered to be substantial if I2 was greater than 30% or if there was a low P value (less than 0) in the test of chi-squared to determine heterogeneity. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was used to combine the data to assume that the studies estimated the same underlying effect of the treatment. If there was sufficient clinical heterogeneity to expect the underlying effects of treatment to differ between trials, or if substantial statistical heterogeneity was detected, this situation was explored and then random effects and subgroup analyses were analyzed.
Publication bias was assessed by visually evaluating the symmetry of the funnel-shaped graphics. If asymmetry was detected, we performed exploratory analyses to investigate it. The dichotomous analysis in the form of the number of failed implants in proportion to the total number of implants inserted was analyzed with a risk ratio (RR) (relative risk) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Random effects were selected when comparing the failures of maxillary and mandibular implants due to heterogeneity.
The subgroup analysis of the anterior and posterior sites of both bones was performed with a fixed effect and a 95% confidence interval for accurate results. The risk difference (RD) (absolute risk) was used to state the results and draw conclusions. After searching the electronic databases, 341 publications were identified; 17 more articles were added after a manual search (35 in total). The elimination of duplicates (120 studies) left 238 studies, studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were rejected (136 studies), and the remaining 102 studies were submitted for reading the full text.
Among them, 74 studies were excluded due to lack of data, 7 studies had a methodological bias and a final total of 21 studies4,10,14,15,20-36 were included in this review. The analysis of the 21 included studies included a total of 78,230 implants, including 39,468 implants in the upper jaw bone and 38,762 implants placed in the lower jaw bone. A total of 1239 implants failed in the upper jaw (3.14%) and 759 in the lower jaw (1.96%). Comparison of the anterior maxillary region with the anterior mandibular region Data were extracted from 11 studies4,14,21,23,26-28,30-32.34 with a total of 14,516 implants.
Of these implants, 8,389 were placed in the maxillary aesthetic area and 6,127 implants were placed in the lower anterior region of the mandible. There were a total of 522 failed implants in the anterior maxillary region (6.2%), compared to 153 failed implants in the anterior mandibular region (2.5%). The RD analysis showed a 3% increase in the risk of failure in the anterior maxillary region compared to the mandibular region previous. Comparison of the posterior maxillary region with the posterior mandibular region Data were extracted from 13 studies4,14,21-24,26,28,30-34 with a total of 39,014 implants; of these, 17,472 were inserted in the maxillary posterior region and 21,542 in the lower posterior region of the mandible.
There were a total of 338 failed implants in the posterior maxillary region (1.9%), compared to 314 failed implants in the posterior mandibular region (1.46%). The RD analysis showed the same risk in the posterior maxillary region as in the posterior mandibular region. Comparison of the anterior maxillary region with the posterior maxillary region A total of 498 implants failed in the anterior region (4%), compared to 333 in the posterior region (2.19%)). The RD analysis reported the same risk of failure in the anterior and posterior maxillary regions.
Comparison of the anterior mandibular region with the posterior mandibular region A total of 168 implants failed in the anterior region (2.5%), compared to 262 implants that failed in the posterior region (4.2%). The RD analysis showed a 2% higher risk of failure in the posterior mandibular region than in the anterior region. Comparison of the anterior maxillary region with the posterior mandibular region Data were extracted from 11 studies4,21-24,26,28,31-34 with a total of 29,800 implants, of which 10,598 were inserted in the region anterior maxillary and 19,202 were placed in the posterior mandibular region. A total of 292 implants failed in the anterior maxillary region (2.8%) compared to 270 failed implants in the posterior mandibular region (1.4%).
The RD analysis showed the same risk in the anterior maxillary and posterior mandibular regions. Comparison of the anterior mandibular region with the posterior maxillary region Data were extracted from 12 studies4,14,21-24,26-28,31,32,34 with a total of 14,984 implants, of which 7,500 were inserted in the anterior mandibular region and 7,484 in the posterior maxillary region. A total of 184 implants failed in the anterior region of the mandible (2.5%), compared to 356 failed implants in the posterior region of the jaw (4.8%).The RD analysis reported a 3% higher risk of failure in the posterior maxillary region compared to the anterior mandibular region. Funnel-shaped graphics were used to visually assess publication bias.
The EIF depends on the surgeon's skill, the type and site of the implant, the condition of the bone, and the circumstances during the healing process. The main objective of this review was to explore any association between the implant site and the FEI by comparing studies performed with implants inserted in different regions of the upper and lower jaw to determine which site most influenced early implant failure and to change the practice of using a single implant design for all anatomical regions. EIFs occur due to the formation of fibrous tissue before osseointegration or to the micro-movements of implants during healing. EIFs are related to bone quality, implant design, bacterial invasion, or inadequate site preparation, which impedes the osseointegration process.
In the current review, studies of a total of 78,230 dental implants were analyzed in which failures were registered after their insertion in different anatomical regions using a fixed effects model. The studies were unable to determine all the confounding factors that could cause the onset of the EIFs. In this review, an attempt was made to exclude studies with implants placed in sites immediately after extraction, based on the results of Quirynen et al. 37, who related the pathology of the extracted tooth to the early failure of the inserted implant.
In addition, studies that included implants inserted after paranasal sinus elevation or bone expansion due to the presence of multiple confounding factors were excluded from the analysis. The results of the current review confirmed that the failure rate of maxillary implants was significantly higher than that of mandibular implants, and that implants placed in the jaw produce twice as many failures as those in the jaw. This review examined the role of the implant site as a risk factor responsible for early implant loss. in both jaw bones.
A RD of 1% was detected between the upper and lower jaws. Posterior implants in both arches have also shown significant flaws compared to anterior mandibular implants. Limiting the risk of failure to the insertion site is unfair, but it helps to improve implant design and surgical techniques, which can be modified depending on the insertion site. Retrospective studies may carry the risk of missing data and that the results will not be correctly interpreted.
Reducing the inclusion criteria increases homogeneity between studies, but could result in the exclusion of some trials with valuable data. The percentage of EIF is high compared to that of failures after charging. In this review, a single main factor was identified for these failures, and the author recommends carrying out more evaluations of the site of implantation taking into account other risk factors. It is recommended to build variable implant designs according to the bone quality of each anatomical site.
Implants designed for high-risk regions should differ in design and surface characteristics compared to those inserted in regions with a low failure rate. Implants that rely on bone compression to increase primary stability are not suitable in areas with dense bones. Finally, it is suggested to place recently modified implants in the form of nanotopographic surface treatments, with high surface wettability and growth factors in high-risk areas, such as the anterior maxillary region, depending on the cost-benefit ratio. The anterior maxilla is a critical site for EIFs compared to other alveolar sites.
Implants inserted into the anterior jaw showed the best success rate compared to other alveolar bone sites. The maxilla is riskier than the mandible when it comes to EIFs, but the difference between the posterior maxillary and posterior mandibular regions is not significant. Abdominal dystrophy between the maxilla and mandible is related to the high-risk anterior maxillary region. The author wishes to thank Prof.
Ghada El Shazly for his help in this review by verifying the inclusion and exclusion of studies. He participated in the study design, data collection and statistical analysis of the results and wrote the manuscript. Here you will find articles from the journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, courtesy of the National Library of Medicine of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894. Once you've decided to get dental implants as replacement teeth, you can take some steps to ensure they're successful. By understanding the most common causes of failed dental implants in Bloomington, patients can take proactive steps to help ensure the long-term health and stability of their restorations. A total of 168 implants failed in the anterior region (2.5%) compared to 262 failed implants in the posterior region (4.2%).
The use of endoosseous implants has spread to regions of the maxillary bone with insufficient bone volume thanks to the advent of guided bone regeneration (GBR) in recent decades. While dental implants are unlikely to fail (as long as they are properly maintained and any immunocompromising conditions you may have are being treated), this can rarely happen. The dentist will ensure that the implant post is healing properly and, if there are any risk factors, will address it immediately to avoid complications. Allowing plaque and tartar to build up around implant sites can lead to inflammation, gum recession, and even advanced periodontal disease.
In short, dental implants may not be completely pain-free, but most patients only notice mild discomfort after the dental procedure. Fortunately, dental implants offer a reliable solution for restoring both the appearance and function of your smile, with a success rate of more than 95%. Periimplantitis is a term used to describe an inflammatory response with bone loss in the soft tissues surrounding the implants. However, there's always a small risk that you'll have to deal with a failed dental implant in New Haven.
The chemicals found in tobacco can interfere with the body's natural healing ability after a dental implant procedure.
