Cargando…
Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers
OBJECTIVES: This narrative review is aiming on showing reasons for implant failure, removal techniques, and respective clinical considerations; further, the survival rate of implants in previous failed sites is examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questions have been formulated, answered, and discussed...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6934347/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31890309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.234 |
_version_ | 1783483372595576832 |
---|---|
author | Solderer, Alex Al‐Jazrawi, Adrian Sahrmann, Philipp Jung, Ronald Attin, Thomas Schmidlin, Patrick R. |
author_facet | Solderer, Alex Al‐Jazrawi, Adrian Sahrmann, Philipp Jung, Ronald Attin, Thomas Schmidlin, Patrick R. |
author_sort | Solderer, Alex |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: This narrative review is aiming on showing reasons for implant failure, removal techniques, and respective clinical considerations; further, the survival rate of implants in previous failed sites is examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questions have been formulated, answered, and discussed through a literature search including studies assessing implant failure and removal up to 2018. RESULTS: Studies describing reasons for implant failure, implant removal techniques, and the reinsertion of implants in a previous failed site (n = 12) were included. To date, peri‐implantitis is the main reason for late implant failure (81.9%). Trephine burs seem to be the best‐known method for implant removal. Nevertheless, the counter‐torque‐ratchet‐technique, because of the low invasiveness, should be the first choice for the clinician. Regarding zirconia implant removal, only scarce data are available. Implantation in previously failed sites irrespective of an early or late failure results in 71% to 100% survival over 5 years. CONCLUSION: If removal is required, interventions should be based on considerations regarding minimally invasive access and management as well as predictable healing. (Post)Operative considerations should primarily depend on the defect type and the consecutive implantation plans. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6934347 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69343472019-12-30 Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers Solderer, Alex Al‐Jazrawi, Adrian Sahrmann, Philipp Jung, Ronald Attin, Thomas Schmidlin, Patrick R. Clin Exp Dent Res Review Articles OBJECTIVES: This narrative review is aiming on showing reasons for implant failure, removal techniques, and respective clinical considerations; further, the survival rate of implants in previous failed sites is examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questions have been formulated, answered, and discussed through a literature search including studies assessing implant failure and removal up to 2018. RESULTS: Studies describing reasons for implant failure, implant removal techniques, and the reinsertion of implants in a previous failed site (n = 12) were included. To date, peri‐implantitis is the main reason for late implant failure (81.9%). Trephine burs seem to be the best‐known method for implant removal. Nevertheless, the counter‐torque‐ratchet‐technique, because of the low invasiveness, should be the first choice for the clinician. Regarding zirconia implant removal, only scarce data are available. Implantation in previously failed sites irrespective of an early or late failure results in 71% to 100% survival over 5 years. CONCLUSION: If removal is required, interventions should be based on considerations regarding minimally invasive access and management as well as predictable healing. (Post)Operative considerations should primarily depend on the defect type and the consecutive implantation plans. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6934347/ /pubmed/31890309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.234 Text en ©2019 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Articles Solderer, Alex Al‐Jazrawi, Adrian Sahrmann, Philipp Jung, Ronald Attin, Thomas Schmidlin, Patrick R. Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers |
title | Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers |
title_full | Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers |
title_fullStr | Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers |
title_full_unstemmed | Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers |
title_short | Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers |
title_sort | removal of failed dental implants revisited: questions and answers |
topic | Review Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6934347/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31890309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.234 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT soldereralex removaloffaileddentalimplantsrevisitedquestionsandanswers AT aljazrawiadrian removaloffaileddentalimplantsrevisitedquestionsandanswers AT sahrmannphilipp removaloffaileddentalimplantsrevisitedquestionsandanswers AT jungronald removaloffaileddentalimplantsrevisitedquestionsandanswers AT attinthomas removaloffaileddentalimplantsrevisitedquestionsandanswers AT schmidlinpatrickr removaloffaileddentalimplantsrevisitedquestionsandanswers |