Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(01): 179-187
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732802
Original Article

Impact of Mechanical Complications on Success of Dental Implant Treatments: A Case–Control Study

Patrícia W. Ferreira
1   Unidade de Epidemiologia, Instituto de Medicina Preventiva e Saúde Pública, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, Lisboa, Portugal
,
Paulo J. Nogueira
1   Unidade de Epidemiologia, Instituto de Medicina Preventiva e Saúde Pública, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, Lisboa, Portugal
,
Miguel A. de Araújo Nobre
1   Unidade de Epidemiologia, Instituto de Medicina Preventiva e Saúde Pública, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, Lisboa, Portugal
2   Research, Development and Education Department, Maló Clinic, Avenida dos Combatentes, Lisboa, Portugal
3   Clínica Universitária de Estomatologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, Lisboa, Portugal
,
Carlos Moura Guedes
4   Prosthodontics Department, Maló Clinic, Avenida dos Combatentes, Lisboa, Portugal
,
Francisco Salvado
3   Clínica Universitária de Estomatologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, Lisboa, Portugal
5   Centro de Investigação Integrada Egas Moniz, Campus Universitário, Quinta da Granja, Caparica
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to investigate the impact of mechanical complications on outcome measures for implant dentistry.

Materials and Methods This case–control study included 282 patients with mechanical complications occurring in fixed prosthetic rehabilitation supported by immediate function implants with external connection (cases) and 282 individuals without mechanical complications (control). Pairing was performed for sex, age (range = 3 years), and follow-up months (range = 11 months). The primary outcome measure was implant survival, while the secondary outcome measures were marginal bone loss and biological complication parameters (peri-implant pathology, soft tissue inflammation, fistula formation, and abscess formation).

Statistical Analysis Cumulative implant survival was estimated by using life tables. Descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and inferential statistics (Chi-square test) were performed to evaluate differences between cases and controls. The significance level was set at 5%.

Results The average follow-up duration was 8.5 years. Mechanical complications included prosthetic fracture (n = 159), abutment loosening (n = 89), prosthetic screw loosening (n = 20), milled abutment (n = 12), milled prosthetic screw (n = 1), and decemented crown (n = 1). Implant failure occurred in one patient from the control group, with survival rates of 100 and 99.6% for cases and controls, respectively (p = 0.317). The average marginal bone loss was 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.60–1.84) for cases and 1.55 (95% CI: 1.45–1.65) for controls (p = 0.068). Biological complications were observed in 90 patients, with significant differences between cases (n = 54) and controls (n = 36; p = 0.038).

Conclusion Mechanical complications did not significantly influence survival or marginal bone loss; nevertheless, there is a need for studies with longer follow-up duration. Mechanical complications also significantly influence the incidence of biological complications.

Keywords

dental implants - complications - implant survival - bone loss


Publication History

Article published online:
29 September 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Emami E, de Souza RF, Kabawat M, Feine JS. The impact of edentulism on oral and general health. Int J Dent 2013; 2013: 498305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Prosthetic rehabilitation of partially dentate or edentulous patients: A systematic review [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU); 2010. 3–25. Available at:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448012. Accessed 2010
  • 3 Maló P, Rangert B, Dvärsäter L. Immediate function of Brånemark implants in the esthetic zone: a retrospective clinical study with 6 months to 4 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000; 2 (03) 138-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gapski R, Wang HL, Mascarenhas P, Lang NP. Critical review of immediate implant loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14 (05) 515-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Malo P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Moss SM, Molina GJ. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142 (03) 310-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Al-Sawai AA, Labib H. Success of immediate loading implants compared to conventionally-loaded implants: a literature review. J Investig Clin Dent 2016; 7 (03) 217-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Kekovic V, Goker F, Tumedei M, Wang HL. A systematic review of survival rates of osseointegrated implants in fully and partially edentulous patients following immediate loading. J Clin Med 2019; 8 (12) 2142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Salvi GE, Brägger U. Mechanical and technical risks in implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 (Suppl 69-85
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11 (Suppl. 01) 156-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fu JH, Hsu YT, Wang HL. Identifying occlusal overload and how to deal with it to avoid marginal bone loss around implants. Eur J Oral Implantology 2012; 5 (Suppl S91-S103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 06) 22-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Prithviraj DR, Srivastava R, Gaur S, Patil A, Raj KS, DP Shruthi. Prosthodontic complications associated with dental implants: a review of literature. Int J Ther Appl 2016; 31: 47-53
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Shemtov-Yona K, Rittel D. An overview of the mechanical integrity of dental implants. BioMed Res Int 2015; 2015: 547384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pommer B, Bucur L, Zauza K, Tepper G, Hof M, Watzek G. Meta-analysis of oral implant fracture incidence and related determinants. J Oral Implants 2014; ID263925
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Dupont WD, Plummer Jr WD. Power and sample size calculations. A review and computer program. Control Clin Trials 1990; 11 (02) 116-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M. Partial rehabilitation of the posterior edentulous maxilla using axial and tilted implants in immediate function to avoid bone grafting. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2011; 32 (09) E136-E145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. Mise en fonction immediate d’implants Brånemark® pour la restauration d’édentements unitaires et de faible étendue maxillaires et mandibulaires. Étude clinique rétrospective de 6 mois à 8 ans. Implant 2005; 11: 23-32
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Maló P, Nobre Md, Lopes A. The rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillae with different degrees of resorption with four or more immediately loaded implants: a 5-year retrospective study and a new classification. Eur J Oral Implantology 2011; 4 (03) 227-243
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Maló P, Nobre Md. Flap vs. flapless surgical techniques at immediate implant function in predominantly soft bone for rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective cohort study with follow-up of 1 year. Eur J Oral Implantology 2008; 1 (04) 293-304
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7 (Suppl. 01) S88-S94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ericsson I, Randow K, Nilner K, Peterson A. Early functional loading of Brånemark dental implants: 5-year clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000; 2 (02) 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Manfredini D, Poggio CE, Lobbezoo F. Is bruxism a risk factor for dental implants? A systematic review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16 (03) 460-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bertolini MM, Del Bel Cury AA, Pizzoloto L, Acapa IRH, Shibli JA, Bordin D. Does traumatic occlusal forces lead to peri-implant bone loss? A systematic review. Braz Oral Res 2019; 33 (Suppl. 01) e069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dawood A, Marti BM, Tanner S. Peri-implantitis and the prosthodontist. Br Dent J 2017; 223 (05) 325-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 de Araújo Nobre M, Mano Azul A, Rocha E, Maló P. Risk factors of peri-implant pathology. Eur J Oral Sci 2015; 123 (03) 131-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rokaya D, Srimaneepong V, Wisitrasameewon W, Humagain M, Thunyakitpisal P. Peri-implantitis update: risk indicators, diagnosis, and treatment. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (04) 672-682
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Schou S. Implant treatment in periodontitis-susceptible patients: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35 (Suppl. 01) 9-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lin CY, Chen Z, Pan WL, Wang HL. Is history of periodontal disease still a negative risk indicator for peri-implant health under supportive post-implant treatment coverage? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020; 35 (01) 52-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Clementini M, Rossetti PH, Penarrocha D, Micarelli C, Bonachela WC, Canullo L. Systemic risk factors for peri-implant bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43 (03) 323-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hadi SA, Ashfaq N, Bey A, Khan S. Biological factors responsible for failure of osseointegration in oral implants. Biol Med (Aligarh) 2011; 3: 164-170
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Smoking and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43 (05) 487-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kumar PS. Systemic risk factors for the development of peri-implant diseases. Implant Dent 2019; 28 (02) 115-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 de Araújo Nobre M, Mano Azul A, Rocha E, Maló P, Salvado F. Attributable fractions, modifiable risk factors and risk stratification using a risk score for peri-implant pathology. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61 (01) 43-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 de Araújo Nobre M, Salvado F, Nogueira P, Rocha E, Ilg P, 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 (02) 252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lopes A, Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Sánchez-Fernández E, Gravito I. The Nobel-Guide(®) All-on-4(®) treatment concept for rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: a retrospective report on the 7-years clinical and 5-years radiographic outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19 (02) 233-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar