Advertisement

Comparison of implant survival with implants placed in acceptable and compromised bone: a literature review

  • Stefan Ihde
  • Sigmar Kopp
  • Thomas Maier
Comparative Study
  • 150 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Survival rates for conventional dental implant systems are relatively high in normal healthy bone. However, there are subgroups of patients that are at an increased risk of implant failure. In particular, patients with compromised quantity or quality of bone present a significant challenge to the dental implantologist.

Objective

To perform a review of the literature in an attempt to quantify the relative risk of implant failure in compromised bone compared to good or acceptable bone and to identify whether certain anatomical regions are at greater risk.

Search Strategy

We conducted a systematic electronic database search of Medline, Cinhahl and the Cochrane Library through March 2006 identifying articles meeting the eligibility criteria.

Results

We calculated an increased risk of implant failure in compromised bone compared to healthy bone in both the maxilla and the mandible using conventional dental implant systems. Relative risks ranged from 2 to 12 with the highest risk of failure in the maxilla. Conventional systems are often used in combination or after bone augmentation procedures or more innovative methods for stimulating bone growth in patients with compromised bone. These approaches do have their limitations including high costs, the accumulation of the surgical risks, and delayed time to loading.

Discussion

Quantifying the risk of implant failure in patients with compromised bone should assist the implantologist in treatment decision making and patient counseling. Alternative methods for treating patients with compromised bone include zygomatic and lateral implants, neither of which typically require bone augmentation procedures. More studies are needed to evaluate their safety and efficacy.

Keywords

Dental implants Bone quantity Bone quality Compromised bone 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gapski R, Wang H et al. (2003) Critical review of immediate implant loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 14(5): 515–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Von Wowern N (2001) General and oral aspects of osteoporosis: a review. Clin Oral Investig 5(2): 71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanfilippo F, Bianchi AE (2003) Osteoporosis: The effect on maxillary bone resorption and therapeutic possibilities by means of implant prostheses: A literature review and clinical considerations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 23(5): 447–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyne PJ, Lilly LC et al. (2005) De Novo Bone induction by recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein- 2 (rhBMP-2) in maxillary sinus floor augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63(12): 1693–1707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lekholm U, Zarb GA (1985) Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Dentistry. Chicago, QuintessenceGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Truhlar RS, Morris HF et al. (2000) Implant surface coating and bone quality-related survival outcomes through 36 months post-placement of root-form endosseous dental implants. Ann Periodontol 5(1): 109–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Truhlar RS, Morris HF, et al. (1994). Second-stage failures related to bone quality in patients receiving endosseous dental implants: DICRG Interim Report No.7. Dental Implant Clinical Research Group. Implant Dent 3(4): 252–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friberg B, Jemt T et al. (1991) Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Branemark dental implants: A study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6(2): 142–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Higuchi KW, Folmer T et al. (1995) Implant survival rates in partially edentulous patients: A 3-year prospective multicenter study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53(3): 264–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Becker W, Hujoel PP et al. (2000) Osteoporosis and implant failure: An exploratory case-control study. J Periodontol 71(4): 625–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blomqvist JE, Alberius P et al. (1996) Factors in implant integration failure after bone grafting: an osteometric and endocrinologic matched analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 25(1): 63–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belsubeihi ES, Zarb GA (2002) Implant prosthodontics in medically challenged patients: The University of Toronto experience. J Can Dent Assoc 68(2): 103–108Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P. et al. (2005) Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst 19(4): CD004151. ReviewGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Esposito M, Grusovin M, Coulthard P. et al. (2005) Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain(R)) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects. Cochrane Database Syst 19(4): CD003875. ReviewGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friberg BA, Ekestubbe et al. (2002) Clinical outcome of Branemark System implants of various diameters: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17(5): 671–677PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hohlweg-Majert B, Schmelzeisen R et al. (2006). Significance of osteoporosis in craniomaxillofacial surgery: A review of the literature. Osteoporosis Int. 17: 167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ihde S (2001) Restoration of the atrophied mandible using basal osseointegrated implants and fixed prosthetic superstructures. Implant Dent 10(1): 41–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ihde S, Eber M (2004) Case report: Restoration of edentulous mandible with 4 boi implants in an immediate load procedure. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 148(2): 195–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ihde S K (1999) Fixed prosthodontics in skeletal Class III patients with partially edentulous jaws and age-related prognathism: the basal osseointegration procedure. Implant Dent 8(3): 241–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jaffin R A, Berman CL (1991) The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: A 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 62(1): 2–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jemt T, Lekholm U (1995) Implant treatment in edentulous maxillae: A 5-year follow up report on patients with different degrees of jaw resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 10(3): 303–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morris HF, Ochi S (2000) Influence of two different approaches to reporting implant survival outcomes for five different prosthodontic applications. Ann Periodontol 5(1): 90–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rocci A, Martignoni M et al. (2003) Immediate loading of Branemark System TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible: A randomized open-ended clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 1(Suppl 1): 57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scortecci G (1999) Immediate function of cortically anchored disk-design implants without bone augmentation in moderately to severely resorbed completely edentulous maxillae. J Oral Implantol 25(2): 70–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U et al. (1990) Applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: A prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 5(3): 272–281PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UetliburgSwitzerland
  2. 2.GuestrowGermany
  3. 3.OberkochenGermany

Personalised recommendations