LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 21 , Issue 2
March/April 2006

Pages 270–274


The Importance of Implant Surface Characteristics in the Replacement of Failed Implants

Ghada Alsaadi, DDS, MSc / Marc Quirynen, DDS, PhD / Daniel van Steenberghe, MD, PhD, Dr hc


PMID: 16634498

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to compare the failure rates of implants with either a machined surface or a TiUnite surface used to replace failing implants. materials and methods: The files of 578 patients, ie, of all patients who were treated at the Department of Periodontology of the University Hospital in Leuven by means of oral implants during 3 recent consecutive years, were analyzed. The implants included in the study had an observation time ranging from 9 to 49 months. All patients had been provided with Brånemark System implants. Only 2 types of implant surfaces were used: machined and TiUnite. Data collection and analysis focused on the replacement implants, ie, implants placed at sites where the original implants had failed. Data were statistically analyzed by means of Statistica for Windows Software version 5.1; a Fisher exact P test was used. The level of significance was set at P = .05. Results: A total of 41 patients experienced the nonintegration of 58 implants. Of those, 29 implants with a machined surface were replaced by implants with the same surface. Six of the replacement implants failed. Nineteen machined-surface implants were replaced by TiUnite surface implants; 1 failed. Ten TiUnite-surface implants were replaced by implants with the same surface; none failed. The difference in failure rate between machined-surface replacement implants and TiUnite replacement implants was statistically significant (P = .05). Discussion: In addition to the usual patient-related compromising factors, replacement of a failing implant involves the challenge of achieving osseointegration in a nonpristine bone site. In the present study, implants with TiUnite surfaces were associated with fewer failures than machined-surface implants under the same conditions. Conclusion: An improved implant surface such as TiUnite may offer a better prognosis when a failed implant has to be replaced at the same site. (Comparative Cohort Study)

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:270–274
Key words: dental implants, implant failures, implant surfaces, osseointegration


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help