Analysis of risk factors of 19 fractured implants
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2018.12.005
- VernacularTitle: 19枚种植体负重不同时间后折裂折断的临床分析
- Author:
Huajie YU
1
;
Yibo ZHU
1
;
Xing WANG
2
;
Lixin QIU
1
Author Information
1. Fourth Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100025, China
2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Dental implantation;
Dental implants;
Implant fracture;
Implant-abutment interaction
- From:Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2018;53(12):815-820
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze the incidence and possible risk factors of 19 fractured implants out of 8 468 implants in 3 184 cases.
Methods:During the 22-year clinical practice, clinical records of 18 patients with 19 fractured implants in 3 184 cases with 8 468 implants were analyzed to determine the following factors: location of the fractured implants, prosthodontics option, date of implant fracture, dimensions of fractured implants, complications prior to implant fracture and parafunctional habit. An evaluation of fractured implants was performed to identify possible factors that may predispose an implant to a higher risk of fracture.
Results:Overall, the average duration of service of the implants was (7.0±4.5) years. Implant fracture occurred in 7 Camlog implants, 7 Nobel replace implants, 3 Ankylos implants and 2 Brånemark implants. No Thommen implant fractures were recorded. Amongst the 19 fractured implants, 8 occurred at the thinnest wall portion of the implant neck, 8 at the end of screw and 3 at the self-tapping thread region. All fractures were observed after functional loading. Furthermore, 9/19 (47.4%) of fractures occurred in the maxilla, indicating similar incidence rates in both arches (P=0.065). Most of fractures (16/19) occurred in the molar region and 18/19 in single implant-supported restorations. Totally 17 cases had received metal occlusal restorations. In 6 cases (35.5%), previous bone destruction apically extending to the level of implant fracture was documented before any clinical signs of fracture. Three fractured implants were removed and simultaneously re-implanted with larger-diameter implants, while the rest of the cases were left to heal, followed by a second-stage surgery.
Conclusions:Within the limitation of this analysis, the study demonstrated that appropriate implant-abutment connection design, implant diameter, prosthetic strategy and bone resorption are crucial to the long-term performance of implants. There is no significant difference of fractures rates in both archs.
