World Rural Health Conference
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 2325
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 1617-1619  

A 10 years retrospective study of assessment of prevalence and risk factors of dental implants failures


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Crown Bridge and Implantology, Patna Dental College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
2 Department of Periodontics, People's Dental Academy, Bhopal, MP, India
3 Department of Dentistry, Vardaman Institute of Medical Sciences, Pawapuri, India
4 Department of Dentistry, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
5 Department of Periodontics, Malabar Dental College and Research Centre, Malappuram, Kerala, India

Date of Submission17-Dec-2019
Date of Decision23-Feb-2020
Date of Acceptance02-Mar-2020
Date of Web Publication26-Mar-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Anuj Singh Parihar
Department of Periodontics, People's Dental Academy, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1171_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Aim: The present study was conducted to determine the prevalence rate of dental implants failure and risk factors affecting dental implant outcome. Materials and Methods: The present retrospective study was conducted on 826 patients who received 1420 dental implants in both genders. Length of implant, diameter of implant, location of implant, and bone quality were recorded. Risk factors such as habit of smoking, history of diabetes, hypertension, etc., were recorded. Results: In 516 males, 832 dental implants and in 310 females, 588 dental implants were placed. Maximum dental implant failure was seen with length < 10 mm (16%), with diameter < 3.75 mm, and with type IV bone (20.6%). The difference found to be significant (P < 0.05). Maximum dental implant failures were seen with smoking (37%) followed by hypertension (20.8%), diabetes (20.3%), and CVDs (18.7%). Healthy patients had the lowest failure rate (4.37%). Conclusion: Dental implant failure was high in type IV bone, dental implant with < 3.75 mm diameter, dental implant with length < 10.0 mm, and among smokers.

Keywords: Dental implant, failure, smoker


How to cite this article:
Singh R, Parihar AS, Vaibhav V, Kumar K, Singh R, Jerry JJ. A 10 years retrospective study of assessment of prevalence and risk factors of dental implants failures. J Family Med Prim Care 2020;9:1617-9

How to cite this URL:
Singh R, Parihar AS, Vaibhav V, Kumar K, Singh R, Jerry JJ. A 10 years retrospective study of assessment of prevalence and risk factors of dental implants failures. J Family Med Prim Care [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 28];9:1617-9. Available from: http://www.jfmpc.com/text.asp?2020/9/3/1617/281192




  Introduction Top


Dental implants are commonly advice to replace missing teeth. A survival rate of 95% in 5 years has been considered successful implant therapy. The successful dental implant therapy depends upon various factors such as patient-related factors as well as dental implant-related factors. However, several etiologies may serve as early or late failure of dental implants such as biological, mechanical, or iatrogenic factors.[1]

Patient-related factors such as bone quantity, bone quality, and hidden pathologies play an important role. General health of patient and anatomical location are other factors affecting the outcome of therapy.[2] There are certain contraindications of dental implants. Smoking, diabetes, hypertension, CVDs, etc., are medical conditions which affect dental implant therapy outcome over years. Dental implant-related factors such as design of dental implant, length, width, prosthetic part, etc., determine the success rate of dental implants.[3]

Several studies have demonstrated various criteria to assess the survival and success rate of dental implants.[4],[5] International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference report suggested that dental implant with mobility, pain on function, or bone loss more than 1/2 of implant length is the sign of failure. Albrektsson et al.[6] suggested that dental implant without any mobility, with no peri-implant radiolucency, bone loss < 0.2 mm per year after the first year of loading, and no persistent pain, discomfort, or infection is labeled as successful implant therapy. Considering this, the present retrospective study was conducted to determine the prevalence rate of dental implants failure placed over 10 years and risk factors affecting dental implant outcome.


  Materials and Methods Top


The present retrospective study was conducted in the Department of Periodontics. It comprised of 826 patients who received 1420 dental implants in both genders. The study protocol was approved from institutional ethical committee. Patients with hormonal imbalance, chronic infectious disease, patients on immunosuppressive therapy, pregnant women, drug and alcohol addicts, and patients with severe periodontal diseases were excluded.

Dental records of all subjects were retrieved from the department. General information such as name, age, gender, etc., were recorded. In all patients, clinical features as well as radiographic findings from departmental records was assessed to record length of implant, diameter of implant, location of implant, and bone quality. Risk factors such as habit of smoking, history of diabetes, hypertension, etc., were recorded.

Patients' recalled data were assessed, and any mobility of dental implant, radiographic evidence of peri- implant radiolucency, any infection, pain or discomfort, and bone loss >2 mm around dental implant was considered implant failure.

The obtained data were assessed using SPSS version 21 (IBM. Chicago, USA). One-way ANOVA test was used to assess failure rate in dental implants. P value less 0.05 was considered statistical significant.


  Results Top


[Table 1] shows that in 516 males, 832 dental implants, and in 310 females, 588 dental implants were placed. In [Table 2], graph I shows that there were 92 (11%) dental implant failures in males and 53 (9%) in females. [Table 3] shows that maximum dental implant failure was seen with length < 10 mm (16%) followed by 10–11.5 mm (9.61%) and >11.5 mm (8.57%). [Table 4] shows that maximum dental implant failure was seen with diameter < 3.75 mm (25%) followed by 3.75–4.5 mm (16.8%) and >4.5 mm (6.91%). The difference was found to be significant (P < 0.05). [Table 5] shows that maximum dental implant failure was seen with type IV bone (20.6%) followed by type III (11.4%), type II (9.22%), and type I bone (8%). The difference found to be significant (P < 0.05). [Table 6] shows that maximum dental implant failures were seen with smoking (37%) followed by hypertension (20.8%), diabetes (20.3%), and CVDs (18.7%). Healthy patients had lowest failure rate (4.37%). One-way ANOVA test showed significant difference between implant failure based on risk factors (P < 0.05).
Table 1: Distribution of patients

Click here to view
Table 2: Prevalence of dental implant failures

Click here to view
Table 3: Dental implant failure depending on implant length

Click here to view
Table 4: Dental implant failure depending on implant diameter

Click here to view
Table 5: Dental implant failure depending on bone quality

Click here to view
Table 6: Risk factors and dental implant failures

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Dental implants are now widely used for the replacement of one or more missing teeth.[7] Dental implant therapy has revolutionized the field of dentistry. The choice of dental implant varies among dental surgeons. The survival rate of therapy depends on osseointegration between dental implant and bone.[8] Bone quality and quantity are the limiting factors that determine success of dental implant. Poor quality bone such as seen in type IV and III leads to failures. However, certain conditions such as smoking, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes are threat to dental implants.[9]

In the present study, 588 dental implants were placed on 826 patients. Krisam et al.[10] found that 9 out of 186 implants (4.8%) placed in 106 patients failed before final prosthesis. Risk factor of early implant failure was shorter implants (<10 mm) and the need for augmentation procedures. It was found that for shorter implants, the risk was 5.8 times greater than that for longer implants (P = 0.0230). Use of augmentation procedures increased the risk by a factor of 5.5 (P = 0.0174).

We found that maximum dental implant failure was seen with length < 10 mm (16%). Raikar et al.[11] found maximum implants failures (55) in age group >60 years. Age group < 40 years had 20 failed implants. Dental implants with length >11.5 mm (40/700) showed maximum failure rates. There was higher failure rate in mandibular posterior and maxillary posterior compared to anterior area. 0.3% implant failure was noted in type I bone and 0.8% in type IV bone.

We observed that maximum dental implant failure was seen with diameter < 3.75 mm. Jafarian et al.[12] found that maxillary canine area had the highest failure rate (6.8%), least with mandibular incisor region (2.0%), and the longest survival time of 3182 days. Maxillary canine areas had the shortest survival with 2996 days of survival. The longest survival time was observed in implants with 11 mm length (3179.72 days) and 3.75–4 mm diameter (3131.161 days), and the shortest survival was found in implants with 11.5 mm length (2317.79 days) and 6.5 mm diameter (2241.45 days).

In present study, we found that maximum dental implant failure was seen with type IV bone (20.6%). It was seen that maximum dental implant failures were seen with smoking (37%).

Wang et al.[13] found that 90 out of 100 implants showed initial early failure (0.98%). Out of 67 replacement implants, 1 failed before prosthesis delivery, and 1 implant failure occurred 20 months after prosthesis delivery, which represented a cumulative survival rate of 94.6%.

Nobre et al. by 5 years retrospective study concluded that the risk score for estimating peri-implant disease showed very good performance.[14] We found that smaller length and smaller diameter of implant with smoking habit have higher failure rate.

Evaluation of risk factors and implant type selection helps in the successful outcome of dental implant for the practice of primary care.


  Conclusion Top


Dental implant failure was high in type IV bone, dental implant with < 3.75 mm diameter, dental implant with length < 10.0 mm, and among smokers.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Borie E, Orsi IA, de Araujo CP. The influence of the connection, length and diameter of an implant on bone biomechanics. Acta Odontol Scand 2015;73:321-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Yeşildal R, Karabudak F, Bayındır F, Zamanlou H, Yildirim MP, Saǧsöz NP, et al. Effect of implant diameter and length on stress distribution for titanium and zirconia implants by using finite element analysis (FEA). Open Access Libr J 2015;2:1-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Abraham HM, Philip JM, Jain AR, Venkatakrishnan CJ. The effect of implant and abutment diameter on peri-implant bone stress: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Res Rev 2016;8:49-52.  Back to cited text no. 3
  [Full text]  
4.
Shi JY, Gu YX, Zhuang LF, Lai HC. Survival of implants using the Osteotome technique with or without grafting in the posterior maxilla: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:1077-88.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Manzano G, Montero J, Martín-Vallejo J, Del Fabbro M, Bravo M, Testori T. Risk factors in early implant failure: A meta-analysis. Implant Dent 2016;25:272-80.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Draenert FG, Kämmerer PW, Berthold M, Neff A. Complications with allogeneic, cancellous bone blocks in vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: Prospective clinical case study and review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016;122:31-43.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Papaspyridakos P. Implant success rates for single crowns and fixed partial dentures in general dental practices may be lower than those achieved in well-controlled university or specialty settings. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2015;15:30-2.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Termeie D, Klokkevold PR, Caputo AA. Effect of implant diameter and ridge dimension on stress distribution in mandibular first molar sites-A photoelastic study. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:165-73.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Krisam J, Ott L, Schmitz S, Klotz AL, Seyidaliyeva A, Rammelsberg P, et al. Factors affecting the early failure of implants placed in a dental practice with a specialization in implantology–a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:208.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Raikar S, Talukdar P, Kumari S, Panda SK, Oommen VM, Prasad A. Factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants: A retrospective study. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2017;7:351-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
  [Full text]  
12.
Jafarian M, Bayat M, Pakravan AH, Emadi N. Analysis of the factors affecting surgical success of implants placed in Iranian warfare victims. Med Princ Pract 2016;25:449-54.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Wang F, Zhang Z, Monje A, Huang W, Wu Y, Wang G, et al. Intermediate long-term clinical performance of dental implants placed in sites with a previous early implant failure: A retrospective analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1443-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Nobre MA, Salvado F, Nogueira P, Rocha E, Peter Ilg, Maló P. A Peri-implant disease risk score for patients with dental implants: Validation and the influence of the interval between maintenance appointments. J Clin Med 2019;8:1-12.  Back to cited text no. 14
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
   Materials and Me...
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed18    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded5    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal