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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Solderer, Alex, Al‐Jazrawi, Adrian, Sahrmann, Philipp, Jung, Ronald, Attin, Thomas, Schmidlin, Patrick R.
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