The Experts below are selected from a list of 28815 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Bruno Collaert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
relationship between trabecular bone architecture and early dental Implant Failure in the posterior region of the mandible
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020Co-Authors: Laura Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo, Jeroen Van Dessel, Mariana Quirino Silveira Soares, Reinhilde Jacobs, Bruno CollaertAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between preoperative trabecular bone structure and Implant outcome based on bone morphometric bone parameters from CBCT scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive cases with early Implant Failure in the posterior region of the mandible were matched with 20 control patients with a successful Implant osseointegration selected. All patients had taken a preoperative CBCT image according to a standardized acquisition protocol. On these CBCT scans, the trabecular bone of each Implantation site was selected and segmented, after which 3D morphometric bone parameters were calculated and used in a cluster analysis to objectively differentiate trabecular bone patterns. Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant association between trabecular pattern and Implant outcome. RESULTS: A sparse, intermediate, and dense trabecular bone pattern was distinguished by cluster analysis. The relationship between the trabecular bone pattern and early Implant Failure was significant (z = 9.6; p < .05). Early Implant Failure was more likely to occur in the sparse bone types, while Implant survival was associated with intermediate bone types. CONCLUSION: Prior to Implant placement, attention should be given to extreme deviations in trabecular structure at the planned Implant sites. Very sparse or very dense bone should be carefully evaluated at the potential Implant site, while intermediate bone types seem favorable for Implant survival.
-
a multifactorial analysis to identify predictors of Implant Failure and peri Implant bone loss
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2015Co-Authors: Stijn Vervaeke, Bruno Collaert, Jan Cosyn, Ellen Deschepper, Hugo De BruynAbstract:Aim. To identify risk factors for Failure and bone loss of Implants in a large study sample on the basis of multivariate analyses. Materials and Methods. Patient files of all patients referred for Implant treatment from november 2004 to 2007 were scrutinized and information on Implant- and patient-related factors was collected. The study sample in this retrospective cohort study consisted of both partially dentate and fully edentulous patients referred for various indications. The only inclusion criterion was a follow-up of at least 2 years. Implant survival and bone loss were assessed by an external examinator (SV) comparing digital peri-apical radiographs taken during recall-visits with the post-operative ones. Univariate and multivariate tests were adopted to identify possible risk indicators for Implant Failure and peri-Implant bone loss. Results. Twenty-one of 1,320 (1.6%) Implants were lost in 19/376 (5.1%) patients (210 ♀, 166 ♂; mean age 56, range 17-82) after a mean follow-up of 32 months (range 24-62). Based on multivariate analysis, only smoking (p = .001) and recall-compliance (p = .010) had a significant influence on Implant Failure with smokers more prone to Failure. The overall mean bone loss was 0.36 mm (SD 0.68, range 0.00-7.10). Smoking (p=.001) and jaw of treatment (p = .001) did affect peri-Implant bone loss. More peri-Implant bone loss was observed in smokers and in the maxilla. A clear discrepancy was found between univariate and multivariate analysis to identify risk factors. Conclusion. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that Implant-related factors did not affect the clinical outcome, but smoking was identified as a predictor for Implant Failure Implants installed in smokers are more prone to Failure. Predictors for peri-Implant bone loss were smoking and jaw of treatment.
-
the effect of smoking on early Implant Failure
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1994Co-Authors: H De Bruyn, Bruno CollaertAbstract:This retrospective study describes the effect of smoking on initial fixture Failure before functional loading with fixed prosthetic restorations. Of 208 installed Branemark fixtures in the mandible, only 1 failed (0.5%), and no detrimental effect of smoking on fixture survival could be detected. In the maxilla, 10/244 fixtures failed (4%); 7/78 fixtures failed in smokers and 3/166 in nonsmokers. The Failure rate before loading was 9% in smokers versus 1% in nonsmokers and was statistically significant, despite the fact that bone quality in both groups was comparable. Failed fixtures occurred in 31% of the smokers, despite often excellent bone quality, long fixture length or good initial stability. Only 4% of the nonsmokers had Failures, in most cases related to poor bone quality. It is concluded that smoking is a significant although not the only important factor in the Failure of Implants prior to functional loading. Prospective studies are needed to assess the risk of Implant Failure in conjunction with smoking. In the mean time, patients should be informed of the adverse effect of smoking.
Reinhilde Jacobs - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
relationship between trabecular bone architecture and early dental Implant Failure in the posterior region of the mandible
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020Co-Authors: Laura Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo, Jeroen Van Dessel, Mariana Quirino Silveira Soares, Reinhilde Jacobs, Bruno CollaertAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between preoperative trabecular bone structure and Implant outcome based on bone morphometric bone parameters from CBCT scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive cases with early Implant Failure in the posterior region of the mandible were matched with 20 control patients with a successful Implant osseointegration selected. All patients had taken a preoperative CBCT image according to a standardized acquisition protocol. On these CBCT scans, the trabecular bone of each Implantation site was selected and segmented, after which 3D morphometric bone parameters were calculated and used in a cluster analysis to objectively differentiate trabecular bone patterns. Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant association between trabecular pattern and Implant outcome. RESULTS: A sparse, intermediate, and dense trabecular bone pattern was distinguished by cluster analysis. The relationship between the trabecular bone pattern and early Implant Failure was significant (z = 9.6; p < .05). Early Implant Failure was more likely to occur in the sparse bone types, while Implant survival was associated with intermediate bone types. CONCLUSION: Prior to Implant placement, attention should be given to extreme deviations in trabecular structure at the planned Implant sites. Very sparse or very dense bone should be carefully evaluated at the potential Implant site, while intermediate bone types seem favorable for Implant survival.
-
the relative impact of local and endogenous patient related factors on Implant Failure up to the abutment stage
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2002Co-Authors: Daniel Van Steenberghe, Reinhilde Jacobs, M Desnyder, Gaia Maffei, Marc QuirynenAbstract:The aim of the present study was to assess the influence of endogenous and local factors on the occurrence of Implant Failure up to the abutment stage. The study comprised a group of 399 consecutive patients, which represented the total of patients who had been treated from 1995 to 1997 (with a total of 1263 Branemark Bran-system Implants) at the Department of Periodontology of the University Hospital, Catholic University Leuven. For each patient, the medical history was carefully examined. Data collection and analysis were mainly focused on endogenous factors such as hypertension, osteoporosis, hypo- or hyperthyroid function, chemotherapy, diabetes type I or II, Crohn's disease, some local factors (e.g. bone quality, reason for tooth loss) and breach of sterility during surgery. The reason for tooth loss, smoking habits, radiotherapy and other local bone factors (bone quality and quantity) were also recorded. Implant Failures were recorded up to the abutment connection. The present study indicated a success rate until this stage of 97.8%. General factors such as heavy smoking, chemotherapy plus poor bone quality increased Implant Failure rate. Radiotherapy, limited bone volume and claustrophobia, which led to breaching the strict preoperative rules of asepsis, appeared to be the most relevant local factors for early Implant Failures.
Alberto Monje - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
medication related dental Implant Failure systematic review and meta analysis
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2018Co-Authors: Vivianne Chappuis, Gustavo Avilaortiz, Mauricio G Araujo, Alberto MonjeAbstract:OBJECTIVES The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between the intake of systemic medications that may affect bone metabolism and their subsequent impact on Implant Failures. MATERIAL AND METHODS Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted. Implant Failure (IF) was the primary outcome, while biological/mechanical and the causes/timing associated with IF were set as secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses for the binary outcome IF and odds ratio were performed to investigate the association with medications. RESULTS A final selection of 17 articles was screened for qualitative assessment. As such, five studies focused on evaluating the association of Implant Failure and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), two on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), two on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), seven on bisphosphonates (BPs), and one on anti-hypertensives (AHTNs). For PPIs, the fixed effect model estimated a difference of IF rates of 4.3%, indicating significantly higher IF rates in the test compared to the control group (p < 0.5). Likewise, for SSRIs, the IF was shown to be significantly higher in the individuals taking SSRIs (p < 0.5) as estimated a difference of 7.5%. No subset meta-analysis could be conducted for AHTNs medications as only one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which revealed an increased survival rate of AHTN medication. None of the other medications yielded significance. CONCLUSIONS The present systematic review showed an association of PPIs and SSRIs with an increased Implant Failure rate. Hence, clinicians considering Implant therapy should be aware of possible medication-related Implant Failures.
-
intermediate long term clinical performance of dental Implants placed in sites with a previous early Implant Failure a retrospective analysis
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2015Co-Authors: Feng Wang, Alberto Monje, Zhiyong Zhang, Wei Huang, Guomin WangAbstract:Purpose The aim of this retrospective case–control study was to evaluate the intermediate long-term clinical performance and success rate of dental Implants inserted into sites of previous early Implant Failure. Material and methods A retrospective evaluation was conducted on 6456 patients with 10,234 Implants from January 2004 to December 2011. The patients with early Implant Failure retreated in previous failed sites were enrolled in the study. The collected data included patient′s characteristics, Implants characteristics (failed and replaced), and if was the case, any additional surgery performed prior or at the same of Implant placement to obtain proper hard tissues dimensions. Moreover, peri-Implant clinical parameters, marginal bone loss (MBL), and the Implant quality scale (IQS) of the replacement Implants were recorded after delivering of the final prosthesis and annually thereafter. Results Ninety-six patients (100 Implants) showed initial early Failure (Failure rate = 0.98%). Sixty-six patients (male: 38; female: 28; mean age: 42.3 ± 18.2 years old) with early Implant Failure received a total of 67 replacement dental Implants. Three patients with three Implants dropped out of the study during the mean follow-up of 69.4 ± 27.0 months. The Implant length and diameter were varied for seven sites. The number of sites that required additional surgeries increased from 18 to 24 for first and replacement Implant insertion, respectively. One of the 67 replacement Implants failed before prosthesis delivery, and one Implant Failure occurred 20 months after prosthesis delivery, which represented a cumulative survival rate of 94.6%. At last follow-up evaluation, the overall mean MBL was 1.7 ± 1.3 mm. Two of 64 Implants failed according to IQS criteria, three Implants showed satisfactory survival, and one Implant showed compromised survival. No pain or tenderness was observed in the rest 58 Implants evaluated, showing a success rate (optimum health) of 90.6%. Conclusion Within the limits of the present study, early Implant Failure was not an obstacle for Implant replacement at the same site after an adequate soft and hard tissues healing period.
Juan Pablo Horcajada - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Implant sonication increases the diagnostic accuracy of infection in patients with delayed but not early orthopaedic Implant Failure
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2013Co-Authors: Lluis Puigverdie, Eduard Alentorngeli, A Gonzalezcuevas, Luisa Sorli, Margarita Salvado, Albert Alier, Xavier Pelfort, Maria Eugenia Portillo, Juan Pablo HorcajadaAbstract:The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy for the detection of infection between the culture of fluid obtained by sonication (SFC) and the culture of peri-Implant tissues (PITC) in patients with early and delayed Implant Failure, and those with unsuspected and suspected septic Failure. It was hypothesised that SFC increases the diagnostic accuracy for infection in delayed, but not early, Implant Failure, and in unsuspected septic Failure. The diagnostic accuracy for infection of all consecutive Implants (hardware or prostheses) that were removed for Failure was compared between SFC and PITC. This prospective study included 317 patients with a mean age of 62.7 years (9 to 97). The sensitivity for detection of infection using SFC was higher than using PITC in an overall comparison (89.9% versus 67%, respectively; p < 0.001), in unsuspected septic Failure (100% versus 48.5%, respectively; p < 0.001), and in delayed Implant Failure (88% versus 58%, respectively; p < 0.001). PITC sensitivity dropped significantly in unsuspected compared with suspected septic Failure (p = 0.007), and in delayed compared with early Failure (p = 0.013). There were no differences in specificity. Sonication is mainly recommended when there is Implant Failure with no clear signs of infection and in patients with delayed Implant Failure. In early Failure, SFC is not superior to PITC for the diagnosis of infection and, therefore, is not recommended as a routine diagnostic test in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:244–9.
-
Implant sonication increases the diagnostic accuracy of infection in patients with delayed but not early orthopaedic Implant Failure
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2013Co-Authors: Lluis Puigverdie, Eduard Alentorngeli, A Gonzalezcuevas, Luisa Sorli, Margarita Salvado, Albert Alier, Xavier Pelfort, Maria Eugenia Portillo, Juan Pablo HorcajadaAbstract:The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy for the detection of infection between the culture of fluid obtained by sonication (SFC) and the culture of peri-Implant tissues (PITC) in patients with early and delayed Implant Failure, and those with unsuspected and suspected septic Failure. It was hypothesised that SFC increases the diagnostic accuracy for infection in delayed, but not early, Implant Failure, and in unsuspected septic Failure. The diagnostic accuracy for infection of all consecutive Implants (hardware or prostheses) that were removed for Failure was compared between SFC and PITC. This prospective study included 317 patients with a mean age of 62.7 years (9 to 97). The sensitivity for detection of infection using SFC was higher than using PITC in an overall comparison (89.9% versus 67%, respectively; p < 0.001), in unsuspected septic Failure (100% versus 48.5%, respectively; p < 0.001), and in delayed Implant Failure (88% versus 58%, respectively; p < 0.001). PITC sensitivity dropped significantly in unsuspected compared with suspected septic Failure (p = 0.007), and in delayed compared with early Failure (p = 0.013). There were no differences in specificity. Sonication is mainly recommended when there is Implant Failure with no clear signs of infection and in patients with delayed Implant Failure. In early Failure, SFC is not superior to PITC for the diagnosis of infection and, therefore, is not recommended as a routine diagnostic test in these patients.
Thomas B. Dodson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does the use of prophylactic antibiotics decrease Implant Failure
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America, 2011Co-Authors: Basel Sharaf, Thomas B. DodsonAbstract:The use of prophylactic antibiotics in Implant dentistry is controversial. Given the known risks of antibiotic treatment and lack of consensus on using antibiotics at the time of Implant insertion, the purpose of this article was to review available studies on use of perioperative prophylactic antibiotics at the time of Implant placement and to provide evidence-based recommendations for antibiotic use. The reviewed studies suggest that a single preoperative dose of 2 g amoxicillin 1 hour before Implant placement or 1 g amoxicillin 1 hour preoperatively and 500 mg 4 times daily 2 days postoperatively can reduce the rate of Implant Failure.
-
Do perioperative antibiotics decrease Implant Failure
Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 2011Co-Authors: Basel Sharaf, Maher Jandali-rifai, Srinivas M. Susarla, Thomas B. DodsonAbstract:Purpose To execute an evidence-based review answering the following question: “Among patients receiving dental Implants, do those who receive perioperative antibiotic therapy, compared with those who do not, have a decreased likelihood of Implant Failure?” Materials and Methods We performed a literature review. The primary predictor variable was an antibiotic regimen, which was grouped into 3 categories: a single preoperative dose, a single preoperative dose and multiday postoperative therapy, and no antibiotic therapy. The primary and secondary outcome variables were Implant Failure and postoperative infection, respectively. Results Eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Two studies assessed the effect of a single preoperative antibiotic dose and reported a reduction in Implant Failure by 1.3% to 2% compared with no antibiotics use. Two studies compared the effect of pre- and postoperative antibiotics and no antibiotic use and found a 4.2% decrease to 1.1% increase in the Failure rates when antibiotics were used. Four studies considered the effect of different antibiotic regimens. Only 2 studies found a statistically significant reduction in Implant Failure (2.5% to 5.4%) when a single preoperative antibiotic dose was used in conjunction with multiday treatment, compared with postoperative multiday treatment only. Four studies analyzed the rate of postoperative infection, which was 0.6% to 3% when no antibiotics were used, 0.6% when preoperative antibiotics alone were used, and 0.8% to 1% when preoperative and postoperative antibiotics were given. Conclusion A single dose of preoperative antibiotic therapy may slightly decrease the Failure rate of dental Implants. However, the current data do not support the routine use of postoperative antibiotics, which can be tailored by the clinician to the patient's specific needs.
-
delayed versus immediate loading of Implants survival analysis and risk factors for dental Implant Failure
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2008Co-Authors: Srinivas M. Susarla, Sung Kiang Chuang, Thomas B. DodsonAbstract:Purpose The purpose of this study was to estimate 1-year survival for delayed versus immediately loaded Implants and identify risk factors for Implant Failure. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective cohort study, consisting of a sample of subjects who had greater than or equal to 1 Bicon dental Implant (Bicon, Boston, MA) placed over a 13-year period. The primary predictor variable was method of Implant loading: delayed (3 to 6 months after placement) or immediately after insertion. Secondary predictor variables were classified as demographic, anatomic, Implant/abutment, and reconstructive. The outcome variable was Implant Failure, defined as removal of the Implant, and was recorded as months of survival. Descriptive, Kaplan-Meier, and univariate Cox proportional hazards statistics were computed. Univariate associations with P ≤ .15 and biologically relevant variables (eg, age, gender) were included in a marginal multiple Cox regression model. In the multiple model, a P value of ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. Results The study sample consisted of 677 subjects who had 2,349 delayed-loaded dental Implants and 178 patients who had 477 immediate-loaded Implants. The unadjusted 1-year survival estimates for the delayed and immediate loading groups were 95.5% and 90.3%, respectively ( P P ≤ .05). Conclusion In this study, Implants loaded immediately were 2.7 times (after adjusting) more likely to fail at 1 year compared with delayed-loaded Implants.
-
Maxillary sinus augmentation as a risk factor for Implant Failure
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2007Co-Authors: Nancy E. Mcdermott, Sung Kiang Chuang, Valerie V. Woo, Thomas B. DodsonAbstract:Purpose The investigators sought to determine whether maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) was an independent risk factor for Implant Failure. Materials and methods Using a retrospective cohort study design, the investigators enrolled a sample composed of subjects having 1 or more Implants placed in the posterior maxilla. The primary predictor variable was MSA status at the time of Implant placement (MSA present or absent). MSA consisted of a lateral window (external) or an osteotome (internal) procedure. The outcome variable was Implant Failure defined as Implant removal. Demographic, health status, anatomic, Implant-specific, abutment-specific, prosthetic, and perioperative variables were also examined. Overall Implant survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Risk factors for Implant Failure were identified using Cox proportional hazard regression models. Results The sample consisted of 318 patients and 762 posterior maxillary Implants. The mean duration of follow-up was 22.50 ± 19.06 months. The 5-year survival rates for Implants in the ungrafted and grafted posterior maxilla were 88.0% and 87.9%, respectively ( P =.08). After adjustment for covariates, MSA status was not an independent risk factor for Implant Failure ( P =.9). Tobacco use ( P P P Discussion MSA status was not associated with Implant Failure risk. This finding may be subject to selection bias, as successful MSA was requisite prior to Implant placement. Conclusion MSA status was not associated with an increased risk for Implant Failure. Of the 3 factors associated with an increased risk for Failure, tobacco use and Implant staging may be modified by the clinician to enhance outcome.— Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
-
Maxillary sinus augmentation as a risk factor for Implant Failure.
The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 2006Co-Authors: Nancy E. Mcdermott, Sung Kiang Chuang, Valerie V. Woo, Thomas B. DodsonAbstract:PURPOSE The investigators sought to determine whether maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) was an independent risk factor for Implant Failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using a retrospective cohort study design, the investigators enrolled a sample composed of subjects having 1 or more Implants placed in the posterior maxilla. The primary predictor variable was MSA status at the time of Implant placement (MSA present or absent). MSA consisted of a lateral window (external) or an osteotome (internal) procedure. The outcome variable was Implant Failure defined as Implant removal. Demographic, health status, anatomic, Implant-specific, abutment-specific, prosthetic, and perioperative variables were also examined. Overall Implant survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Risk factors for Implant Failure were identified using Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS The sample consisted of 318 patients and 762 posterior maxillary Implants. The mean duration of follow-up was 22.50 +/- 19.06 months. The 5-year survival rates for Implants in the ungrafted and grafted posterior maxilla were 88.0% and 87.9%, respectively (P = .08). After adjustment for covariates, MSA status was not an independent risk factor for Implant Failure (P = .9). Tobacco use (P < .001), Implants replacing molars (P < .001), and 1-stage Implants (P < .001) were statistically associated with an increased risk for Implant Failure. DISCUSSION MSA status was not associated with Implant Failure risk. This finding may be subject to selection bias, as successful MSA was requisite prior to Implant placement. CONCLUSION MSA status was not associated with an increased risk for Implant Failure. Of the 3 factors associated with an increased risk for Failure, tobacco use and Implant staging may be modified by the clinician to enhance outcome.
