Post on 16-Apr-2017
transcript
Failures in Implants
1
• Introduction• Definitions• Predictors of implant success or failure• Warning signs of implant failure• Criteria for implant success:• Implant quality scale:• Classifications of implant failures.Enhancing outcome in esthetic implant dentistry.implant maintenance• Conclusion• Bibliography
Contents…
2
Implant dentistry is currently being practiced in an atmosphere of enthusiasm and optimism, because our knowledge and ability to provide service to our patients has expanded so greatly in such a short period.
But Success cannot be guaranteed, what one can guarantee is to care, to do ones best and to be there to help in the rare instance that something goes wrong
Introduction
3
Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm
4
And failure
Failure is the opportunity
To begin again , more intelligently
5
is not the end
The surgeon’s tale‘The implants were successfully integrated , but failed because of excess loads. orThe Restorative Dentist’s tale‘The implants were poorly integrated and so failed under normal masticatory loads.’ either way The Patient’s tale‘My implants have failed!’
………When implant fails……then……….
6
Actually ,Success & Failure of the implants depends upon team work i.e.the co-operation b/w Surgeon, Prosthodontist, Periodontist, lab technician & the Patient.
7
IMPLANT FAILURE…It is defined as total failure of the implant to fulfill its purpose (functional, esthetic or phonetic) because of mechanical or biological reasons.
(Askary et al ID 1999 vol8 no2 173-183)
Definitions …
8
Ailing implants: Those that show radiographic bone loss without inflammatory signs or mobility.
Failing Implant: Characterized by progressive bone loss, signs of inflammation and no mobility.
9
Failed Implants: Those with progressive bone loss, with clinical mobility and that which are not functioning in the intended sense.
Surviving implants:Described by Alberktson, that applies to implants that are still in function but have been tested against the success criteria.
10
Predictors of implant success or failure ( General dentistry 2005, 423-432)
Positive factors Bone type (type 1and 2) Patient less than 60yrs old Experienced Clinician Mandibular placement Implant length > 8mm FPD with more than two implants Axial loading of implant Regular postoperative recalls Good oral hygiene
11
Negative factors Bone type (type 3 and 4) Low bone volume Patient more than 60yrs old Limited clinician experience Systemic diseases Auto-immune disease Chronic periodontitis Smoking and tobacco useUnresolved caries,
endodontic lesions,frank pathology Maxillary, particularly posterior region Short implants (<7mm) Eccentric loading Inappropriate early clinical loading Bruxism and other parafunctional habits
12
Warning signs of implant failure (Askary et al ID 1999; vol 8; no2, 173-183)
Connecting screw loosening Connecting screw fracture Gingival bleeding and enlargement Purulent exudates from large pockets Pain Fracture of prosthetic components Angular bone loss noted radiographically Long-standing infection and soft tissue sloughing during the healing period of first stage surgery
13
Criteria for implant success: …The individual implant is immobile when tested clinically. …No radiographic evidence of peri-implant radiolucency …Bone loss no greater than 0.2 mm annually …Gingival inflammation amenable to treatment …Absence of symptoms of infection and pain …Absence of damage to adjacent teeth …Absence of parasthesia, anesthesia or violation of the mandibular canal or maxillary sinus …Should provide functional survival for 5 years in 90% of the cases and for 10 years in 85%. (Albrekfsson T. :int J. Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1:11-25)
14
Implant quality scale: The scale presented for implant quality of health based on clinical evaluation was first suggested by James and was modified by Misch. This quality of health scale criteria, has to be place in the appropriate category, and then treat the implant accordingly. The prognosis also is related to the quality scale.
15
16
Classification Of Implant failures
…E.S Rosenberg, J.P. Torosian and J. Slots
…Abdel Salam El Askary, Roland Mefert and Terrence Griffin
…Kees Heydenrijik, Henny JA Meijer, Wil A Van der et al
… Marco Esposito, Jan Michael Hirsh, Ulf Lekholm et al
…Sumiya Hobo, Eiji Ichida, Lily T Garcia
17
1. Infectious Failure: …Clinical signs of
infection with classic symptoms of inflammation
…High plaque and gingival
indices …Pocketing …Bleeding,
Suppuration …Attachment loss …Radiographic peri-
implant radiolucency …Presence of granulomatous tissue
upon removal
2. Traumatic Failure: …Radiographic periimplant radiolucency
…Mobility
…Lack of granulomatous tissue upon removal
…Lack of increased probing depths
…Low plaque and gingival indices
A) E.S Rosenberg, J.P. Torosian and J. Slots classified as :
18
B) Marco Esposito, Jan Michael Hirsh, Ulf Lekholm et al have classified oral implant failures according to the osseoi ntegration concept.
1)Biological Failures: • Early or primary (Before loading)• Late or secondary (After loading)
2)Mechanical failures:• Fracture of implants, connecting screws, bridge framework, coatings etc3)Iatrogenic Failures• Improper implant angulation and alignment,
nerve damage
4)Inadequate Patient adaptation • Phonetics, esthetics, psychological problems. 19
C) Kees Heydenrijik, Henny JA Meijer, Wil A Van der et al classified to occurrence in time as: 1) Early Failures: Causes attributed are:
• Surgical trauma• Insufficient quantity or quality of bone• Premature loading of implant• Bacterial infection2) Late Failures: Soon late failures: Implants failing during first year of loading. Overloading in relation to poor bone quality and insufficient bone volume. Delayed late failures: Implant failing in subsequent years. Progressive changes of the loading conditions in relation to bone quality, volume and peri -implantitis.
20
Swedish Team( Branemark et al)
U.C.L.A team(Beumer, Moy)
1. Loss of bone anchorage:a. Mucoperiosteal
perforationb. Surgical trauma
2. Gingival problems:a. Proliferative
gingivitisb. Fistula formation
3. Mechanical complications:a. Fracture of prosthesis, gold
screws, abutment screws
1. Complications in Stage I surgery;
2. Complications in Stage II surgery:
3. Prosthetic complications:
D) Sumiya Hobo, Eiji Ichida, Lily T Garcia enlisted various complications occurring in implants as:
21
E) Abdel Salam el Askary, Roland Meffert and terrence griffin …
According to etiology
Restorative factor
Host factor
Surgical factor
Implant selection factor
According to timing of failure
Before stage II After stage II After restoration
According to origin of infection
Peri- implantitis (Infective process, bacterial origin)
Retrograde peri-implantitis (Traumatic occlusion origin, non infective, forces off the long axis, premature or excessive loading) 22
According to failure modePsychological problems
Lack of osseointegration
Unacceptable aesthetics
Functional problems
According to condition of failureAiling ImplantFailing ImplantFailed ImplantSurviving Im.
According to supporting tissue typeSoft tissue loss Bone loss Combination
According to responsible personnelDentist (Oral surgeon,Prosthodontist, Periodontist)
Dental hygienist
Laboratory Technician Patient
23
According to etiology
Restorative factor
Host factor
Surgical factor
Implant selection factor
Host factor
Medical status : Habits : Oral status
24
A. Host factors…MEDICAL STATUS… medical history is essential to rule out any of the following conditions or disorders. If yes… medical consultation Bone dieases
CV Dieases
Autoimmune
Endocrine
Pregnancy
Hypertension MICongestive heart failureSABE
DM Thyroiddisorders
osteoporosis osteomalacia? hyperparathyriodism
fibrous dysplasia paget dz multiple myeloma
? osteomylitis
sjogren syndrome? SLE? scleroderma ? HIV
25
Avoid to place implant in pregnancy
…In all these conditions ,chances of success rate are poor but implant therapy … not contraindicated except few.
Etiology : host factor
HABITS1) Smoking:Significance• Causes alveolar vasoconstriction and decreased blood flow• Impaired wound healing due to compromised
polymorphonuclear leucocytes function, increased platelet adhesiveness as well as vasoconstriction caused by nicotine.
• Poor bone quality• In case of poor oral hygiene, smokers have 3 times more
marginal bone loss then non-smokers
Recommendations:1.Obtain a smoking history2.Advice on risks of periodontal breakdown3.Advice on the prognosis .Smoking cessation
Etiology : host factor
26
Parafunctional habits:Bruxism is the multidirectional nonfunctional grinding of teeth. Clenching occurs in one direction (vertically). Bruxism is more aggressive. Attrition usually appears on the incisal edges of anterior teeth.
Significance• Most common cause of implant bone loss or lack of rigid fixation during the first year after implant insertion.• Commonly manifests as connecting screw loosening because of
overload.• Failures are higher in maxilla because of decrease in bone density.• Forces are in excess of normal physiologic masticatory load limit.
( upto 1000 psi).
Etiology : host factor
27
Prevention• Increased number of implants to be placed• Avoid cantilevers and occlusal contacts in lateral
excursions• Use of occlusal splint which is relieved over the implant.• Use of wide diameter implant to provide greater surface
area.Progressive bone loading and prosthetic design that improves the distribution of stresses throughout the implant system.( By Misch
Etiology : host factor
28
Poor home care: ORAL STATUS:
Suprabony connective tissue fibers are oriented parallel to the implant surface
Susceptible to plaque accumulation and bacterial ingress
Spontaneous loss of the perimucosal seal
Chances of implant failure increases
Etiology : host factor
29
Prevention
• It is recommended that the patient be recalled frequently, preferably at a minimum of 3 months intervals. Periodontal indices, bleeding on probing and radiographic evaluation should be performed, using plastic tipped probes for checking pocket depths.
• Soft tissue debridement should be performed by means of plastic curettes and plastic tips for ultrasonic scalers, and topical and systematic antimicrobial drugs should be used
• Provide space beneath the superstructure to allow cleansing aids
Etiology : host factor
30
IRRADIATION THERAPY
Significance• Xerostomia• Susceptibility to infection• Osteoradionecrosis• Endarteritis of vessels causes decrease in oxygen supply
Prevention• Waiting period of 9-12 month between radiation therapy and
implant treatment.• Hyperbaric oxygen therapy – 20 treatments of 90 min. each at 2 to
2.4atm before surgery.• Antibiotic regimen 3 days before (augmentin 500mg every 12 hrs).
Etiology : host factor
31
SURGICAL PLACEMENT… …Impaired healing and infection due to improper flap design… …Overheating the bone and exerting too much pressure… …Contamination of implant body before insertion… …Placement of implant in immature bone grafted site… …Severe angulation… …Minimum space between implants… …Lack of initial stabilization…
According to etiology
Restorative factor
Host factor
Surgical placement
Implant selection factor
32
a) Off-axis placement (severe angulation)…
Occlusal load lie at an angle
Shear & tensile forces increases
Chances of failure increases
Problem…
Due to… A) Alveolar process resorption
B) Unexperienced surgeonC) Improper surgical stent
Etiology : surgical factor
33
1) Prerestoring the implant position by grafting
2) To place the implant with an angulation.
3) To place angulated abutments.
Solutions…
Etiology : surgical factor
34
b) Lack of initial stability…Due to oversized osteotomy
Gap develop between implant & bone
Lack of osseointegration
In an experimental investigation, gaps in the range of
0.25 mm around CPTi implants healed, but with less bone contact than the controls.
When the gap size increased to 0.7mm-1.7mm, a thin soft tissue layer was found to develop around the implant.
Etiology : surgical factor
35
Solution…
Remove & reinsert the larger size implant.
if not possible remove insert HA graft material roll the implant moistened in blood & saline & in the particulate slurry until thin layer of slurry clings to it reinsert the implant
Etiology : surgical factor
36
c) Improper healing & infection because of improper flap design…
No single flap design is optimal for implant surgery.
But improper flap design infection & bacterial ingress chances of failure increases
Note: basic surgical procedure, flap design , blood supply, visibility,access, primary closure should be considered.
Etiology : surgical factor
37
d) Overheating the bone and exerting too much pressure……
Etiology : surgical factor
Excessive pressure Bone cell damage Bone loss
Connective tissue interface formed
Failure increases
…Inverse relationship b/w speed & heat production
…Recommended speed- 2000 rpm with graded series of drill size with external irrigation
38
Note: Bone cell death occurs at a temperature of 47 degree and higher when drilling is performed for 1 minute.
Etiology : surgical factor
39
e) Placement of implant in immature bone grafted site…
Etiology : surgical factor
Minimum waiting period of grafted site…6-9 mth
woven bone present before this period, which is fastest formed bone (partly mineralized &Unorganized)
Lamellar bone ideal for implant prosthetic support
Not suitable for implant-bone integration
40
f) Contamination of implant body before insertion…
D/t …non-titanium instrument …by glove powder …by the operatory error
By autoclaving the contaminated implant
Bake the bacteria on implant surface
Impossible for phagocytic cell to clean the surface
No close adaptation to the bone
Etiology : surgical factor
41
……Implant should be cleaned with radiofrequency glow discharge unit or plasma cleaner
……Metal instrument should be titanium tipped
Etiology : surgical factor
42
According to etiology
Restorative factor
Host factor
Surgical placement
Implant selection factor
Implant selection factor… …Improper implant type in improper bone type… …length of the implant… …width of the implant… …number of the implant… …improper implant design…
43
Length of the implant..Misch proposed the range of 10mm-16mm length.
The greater the crown implant ratio, the greater the amount of the force with any lateral force. This means that the implant with unfavorable crown implant ratio will be more influenced by lateral forces. Therefore, maximum implant length must be used for the greatest stability of the overlying prosthesis.
The success rate is proportional to the implant length and the quantity and quality of available bone. The rate of failure can be expected to rise proportionately as the depth of the bone diminishes to less than 10mm.
44
Width of the implant…
Misch recommended that not less than 1 mm of bone surrounding the fixture labially and lingually is mandatory for the long term predictability of dental implants because it maintains enough bone thickness and blood supply.
…it is advisable to use a large- diameter implant in accordance with the available bone width because it offers greater surface area, greater mechanical engagement of the cortical bone, and initial rigidity.
Using a wide implant in a narrow ridge results in labial or lingual dehiscence that leaves the implant affected by the damaging shear stresses. 45
Number of implants…
Misch stated that the use of more implants decreases the number of pontics and the associated mechanics and strains on the prosthesis, and dissipates stresses more effectively to the bone structure. It also increases the implant bone interface and improve the ability of the fixed restoration to withstand forces.
Contrary to this Smith et al correlated between the increased number of implants and the high failure rate caused by wound contamination that might occur because of the long operating time.
46
RESTORATIVE PROBLEMS Excessive Cantilever Pier abutments No passive fit Improper fit of the abutment Bending moments Connecting implants to natural teeth Improper occlusal scheme
According to etiology
Restorative factor
Host factor
Surgical placement
Implant selection factor
47
Excessive cantilevers…
……Used implant-supported prosthesis.
……Mesial C. > Distal C…….
…Cantilever extensions cause load magnification and overloading of the implant next to the cantilever extension, which in turn leads to bone loss
…With occlusal forces acting on the cantilever, the implant becomes a fulcrum and is subjected to rotational forces
Etiology : restorative factor
48
Not preferred ----moderate to severe parafunctional habits
Opposing arch… …ideally a denture …no lateral forces on cantilever
Amount of force increases if… …Length of cantilever …distance between implants …crown height …direction of force …position of arch
Etiology : restorative factor
49
Connecting implants to teeth…Not preferred…
Difference b/w implant & tooth movement in vertical & lateral direction
Etiology : restorative factor
50
Solution… …… increase no. of implants …… improve stress distribution by splinting additional abutment until 0 clinical mobility is observed. …… non-rigid connection – but chances of intrusion of the tooth.
Etiology : restorative factor
Criteria… 1) no observable clinical mobility of natural abutment. 2) no lateral force should be designed on prosthesis.
51
Pier Abutments…Etiology : restorative factor
Main complication d/t difference of mobility of tooth & implant
…2 situations arise…Implant as pier Tooth as pier
…Tooth act as living pontic or pontic with a root
…stress breaker –not indicated
Act as class 1 lever
Non rigid attachment
52
One of the most critical elements affecting the long-term success of a multiple implant restoration is the passive fit between the framework and the underlying fixtures.
A passive fit reduces long term stresses in the superstructure, implant components, and bone adjacent to the implants.
A poorly fitting implant framework can cause mechanical complications such as loose screws or fractured components.
No passive fit…Etiology : restorative factor
53
Improper fit of abutment…
Improper locking b/w abutment-fixture interface
Increased microbial population & increased strain on implant component
Bone loss
Rapid screw-joint failure
Etiology : restorative factor
54
Important guidelines to follow • Infraocclusion upto 30 microns of implant
supported restoration• No balancing contacts on cantilevers.• No guidance on single implants.• Freedom in centric.• Occlusal table directly proportional to implant
diameter.• Narrow occlusal width. • Implant length: crown-root ratio ideal – 1:2 ,
Acceptable – 1:1 for removable denture.• Avoidance of cantilever length. Maximum 10 to 15 mm is advised. 7 mm is
optimum .• Shallow central fossae with tripodal cuspal
contacts. • No contact in lateral excursion.• Slight contact in centric occlusion.
Etiology : restorative factorImproper occlusal scheme…
55
According to timing of failure
Before stage II
After stage II
After restoration
56
Problem Possible cause SolutionsHemorrhage during drilling
Lesion or injury of an artery
-The implant placement will stop the bleeding.-Simple tamponade , bone wax, gelfoam , surgicel , avitene can also be used
Implant mobility after placement
Soft boneImprecise preparation
Remove the implant and replace with one of larger diameter. If the mobility is small prolong the healing time
Exposed implant threads
Too narrow crest Cover the threads with coagulum or place a membrane
Swelling lingually directly after implant placement at the mandibular symphysis
Incision of an artery branch sublingually
EMERGENCY: send the patient to a specialist center for coagulation of the artery under general anesthesia
First stage surgery
57
Injury to neurovascular bundle… The posterior mandible in particular presents
significant challenge when severe atrophy leaves little, if any bone superior to inferior alveolar canal.
…The solution to limited space for posterior mandible fixture placement includes detailed initial treatment planning and careful surgery to unroof the canal and move the neurovascular bundle inferiorly prior to fixture installation…
58
Problem Possible causes SolutionsSlightly sensitive but perfectly immobile implant
Imperfect osseointegration
Cover the implant for 2-3 months and test again
Slightly painful and mobile implant
Lack of integration
Remove the implant
Difficulty inserting a transfer screw, gold screw or healing cap
Damaged inner thread of abutment screw
Change the abutment screw
Inability to perfectly connect the abutment to the implant
Insufficient bone milling
Place a local anesthesia, use a bone mill with guide, remove the bone, clean with saline solution, and replace the abutment
Granulation tissue around the implant head
Traumatic placement of the implant; compression from the transition prosthesis; a lid above the cover screw
Open the area and disinfect with chlorhexidine. If the lesion is too large, consider a bone regeneration or grafting technique
Second stage surgery + abutment connection
59
Problem Possible causes
Solutions
Pain or sensation when tightening gold screws (during try in of prosthesis)
Misfit between prosthesis and abutments
Cut the prosthesis; interlock the pieces, and solder the prosthesis at the laboratory. Retry the prosthesis
Loosening of one or more prosthetic screws at the first inspection after two week
Occlusal problem
Retighten, verify the occlusion, and recheck after two weeks.
Prosthetic problems
60
Loosening of prosthetic screws at the second check or later
Occlusal problem or misfit between prosthesis and abutmentsToo large extensionUnfavourable prosthetic concept
Verify the occlusion and/ or the prosthetic fitReduce the extensionChange the prosthetic design. In all cases, change the prosthetic screws
Fracture of a prosthetic screw or an abutment screw
Occlusal problem, lack of fit between the prosthesis and the abutment or unfavourable prosthetic design
If the occlusion or the adaptation of the prosthesis seems right, modify the prosthetic design (reduce or eliminate extensions, reduce the width of occlusal surfaces, reduce cuspal inclination, add implants, etc)
Prosthetic problems
61
Fracture of the framework
Weak metal frame end or too large extensionBruxism or parafunction
Remake the prosthesis; modify the prosthetic design (reduce or eliminate extensions, reduce width and height of occlusal surfaces, reduce cusp inclination, add implants, etc).Make a nightguard
Implant fracture
Occlusal overload
Remove the implant with a special trephine drill, wait 2- 6 months, if possible, and place a wider implant. Review the prosthetic design(place more implants, etc) and remake the prosthesis
Prosthetic problems
62
1. Continuing bone loss around one or more implants
Infection (peri-implantitis)
Remove the etiolgical factors (poor plaque control, prosthesis geometry in relation to the mucosa, etc). Look for bacterial pockets around the natural teeth. Possibly make a bacteria test. Cut open the lesion. Adjust the peri-implant tissues (gingival graft). Consider a bone regeneration procedure
2. Continuing bone loss around one or more implants
Occlusal overload
Modify the prosthetic design (reduce or eliminate extensions, reduce the width of occlusal surfaces, reduce cuspal inclination, add implants, etc)
Prosthetic problems
63
Psychological Problems
According to failure mode Lack of Osseointegration
Unacceptable Aesthetics
FunctionalProblems
64
Lack of Osseointegration……Adell et al proposed that lack of osseointegration can be due to…… ……Surgical trauma ……Perforation through covering mucoperiosteum during healing ……Repeated overloading with microfractures of the bone at early stages
Functional problems……Proper function of the implants is dependent on two main types of anchorage related and prosthesis related. Anchorage related factor… Osseo integration Marginal bone height Prosthesis related factor… Prosthesis design Occlusal scheme
65
Aesthetic problem……
Aesthetic outcome is affected by four factors:…Implant placement…Soft tissue management…Bone grafting consideration…Prosthetic consideration
Psychological problems………high expectations of the patient
66
…Soft tissue problems
…Bone loss
…Both soft tissue and bone loss
According to supporting tissue type……
67
Soft tissue problems
Gingival loss leads to continuous recession around the implant with subsequent bone loss. This will lead to a soft tissue type of failure.
Significance of attached gingiva surrounding implants…facilitates impression making.…provide tigth collar around the implant.…prevent recession of marginal gingiva.…prevent spread of inflammation to deep tissue.
68
Ono,Nevin,Cappetta classified keratinized gingiva based on reflection of quantity & location in mucogingival surgery during implant placement……
Type 1- flap can be apically positioned to increase the zone of keratinized gingiva on facial side
Type 2-minimum keratinized tissue on ridge but little on facial aspect
Type 2 class I- gingival graftType 2 class II- gingival graft on buccal side,Apically positioned flap on lingual site
69
Type 3- no attached gingiva on the ridge or facial aspect.A gingival graft which is apically postioned to increase theZone of attched gingiva.
70
Bone loss
Loss of marginal bone occurs both during the healing period and after abutment connection
Bone loss in mandible is higher during the healing period. In maxilla, bone loss is higher after abutment connection
Bone functions as a support for the implant and that any disturbance in its function may lead to eventual loss of the implant.
71
Factors that contribute to marginal bone loss:• Surgical trauma such as detachment of the periosteum and damage cased during drilling• Improper stress distribution caused by defective prosthetic design and occlusal trauma• Physiological ridge resorption• Gingivitis, which if allowed to progress will lead to ingression of bacteria and their toxins to the underlying osseous structures.
Both soft tissue and bone loss
If failure starts from soft tissue, then it usually is considered to be due to a bacterial factor. However, if failure starts at the bone level, then it is considered to be due to a mechanical factor. Both bone and soft tissue may be involved together.
72
Enhancing esthetic outcome in implant dentistry…
Prosthodontic considerations
Surgical consideration
Use of platelet–rich-plasma
73
Prosthodontic consideration…1) Interim provisional restoration:
Resin bonded FPD
Use of transitional implants to Support an interim provisional restoration
Modified Essex retainer
74
2) Prosthetic guided soft tissue healing:
Custom abutment & tooth form restoration
Custom tooth form healing abutment
75
Surgical consideration…Cosmetic laser soft tissue resurfacing & sculpting
Creating harmony with cosmetic PD surgery
76
Use of platelet-rich-plasma…Provide blood component & source of growth factor which enhance the wound healing
…3-4ml of non-activated P-R-P is sufficient for multiple implant site
Hard tissue consideration
Soft tissue consideration
Both
…enhancing osseointegration…alveolar ridge preservation…in autogenous bone graft
77
Peri- implantitis
Progressive peri-implant bone loss in conjunction with a soft tissue inflammatory lesion is termed peri-implantitis.
Pathological changes of the peri-implant tissues can be placed in the general category of peri-implant disease. (Lang et al 1994)
Two primary etiological factors1. Bacterial infection2. Biomechanical overload
(Newman et al 1988, 1992, Rosenberg et al 1991)
78
Classification of peri-implantitis Class I
…Slight Horizontal bone loss with minimal Peri-implant defects.TREATMENT……Initial therapy for removal
of etiological factors.…Surgical therapy includes cleaning the
implant surface, Pocket elimination via
Apicalpositioning of flap. Class II…Moderate horizontal bone loss with isolated vertical defects.TREATMENT…Initial therapy for removal of etiological factors…Surgical therapy includes cleaning the implant surface pocket …Elimination and adjunctive treatment using systemic antimicrobials 79
Class III
Class IV
Moderate to advanced horizontalbone loss with broad, circular bony defects.TREATMENT…Initial therapy for removal of etiological factors…Surgical therapy includes cleaningthe implant surface …pocket elimination via osseous regeneration and adjunctive antibiotic treatmentAdvanced horizontal bone loss with broad circumferential vertical defects as well as loss of buccal and lingual bony wall.TREATMENT .Initial therapy for removal of etiological factors.Surgical therapy includes cleaningthe implant surface,pocket elimination via bone regenerationtechniques, possibly autologous bone transplants with adjunctive antibiotic therapy.
80
These are primarily related to failure of prosthodontic materials to resist forces and stresses of oral function.
Mechanical complications…
81
Fractured abutment screw Tip of the explorer is placed on the top
portion of the fractured abutment screw.
With slight apical pressure and a counterclockwise circular motion, the fragment can often be unscrewed.
Care must be taken not to damage the internal threads of the implant. ……When Screw Fragment removed ,replace
with appropriate new abutment and screw. Verify seating with a radiograph prior to final torque. ……Replace prosthesis and secure with new retention screws.
82
Radiographic evaluation of a loose healing abutment.
Removal of healing abutment indicates a distorted screw
Treatment:Replace with new healing abutment
Loose Healing Abutment
83
Area of concern
Radiograph confirms poor seating abutment.
Diagnosis- possible loose or fractured abutment screw
Clinical evaluation after removal of bar indicates loose abutment screw.
Treatment:Retorque abutment screw.
Loose bar…
84
Treatment: continued2 - Abutment screw is tightened with abutment driver.3 - Bar is then replaced and prosthetic screws are torqued with appropriate screw driver.
85
Loose restoration…
Radiographic Evaluation: Small opening at abutment-implant interface
Small opening
Diagnosis:Loose abutment screw
Treatment:1 - Loosen screw and remove restoration 86
2 - inspect the implant hex for damage
3 - inspect the restoration for damage
Implant hex
Abutment hex
(A) No Damage to fixture or restoration
…replace restoration and secure with the same screw.Verify seating with radiograph prior to final torque.Recheck occlusion with shimstock.
(B) Damaged fixture hex and or restoration
replace restoration and secure with appropriate new screw. 87
Fixture loss (Must differentiate b/w “failing” and
“failed”) Failing Implant
Clinical signs:progressive bone loss :soft tissue pockets and crestal bone loss :bleeding on probing with possible purulence :tenderness to percussion or torque forces
Causes:overheating of bone at the time of surgery
or lack of initial stability. :inadequate screw joint closure :functional overload :periodontal infection (peri-implantitis)
Treatment:Interim: remove prosthesis and abutments
:irrigate with Peridex:ultrasonic and disinfect all components:reinsert assuring proper screw torque:recheck passive fit of framework and occlusion
88
Causes: :surgical compromise (overheating bone
and initial lack of stability). :Inadequate screw joint closure :Too rapid initial loading :Functional overload :Periodontal infection (“peri-implantitis”)
Clinical signs:…Mobility…verify fixture mobility by removing any abutments and superstructures first.…A “Dull” percussion sound has been associated with a failed implant.…Peri-implant radiolucency can be a radiographic finding often this is not evident on an X-ray
Failed Implant
Treatment:removal of the implant 89
Treatment:Eventual implant removal
Fractured implant fixture head
90
Accidental swallowing or inhalation of components and /or instruments
Many implant components are as small as are the instruments used for their manipulation. When coated with saliva a component may escape the clinicians grip and fall into the oropharynx, reflex swallowing may take the component out of site almost immediately.
PreventionManual screwdrivers and similar
instruments should always be equipped with a safety line of dental floss.(Minimum length of 10mm)
91
92
…oral hygiene
…implant stability (evaluate mobility)
…peri-implant tissue health…crevicular probing depths…bleeding…radiographic assessment (serial)
crestal bone level (expect 1.0mm marginal bone loss during first year postinsertion; 0.1mm per year anticipated thereafter )
…proper torque on screw joints…occlusion …Patient comfort and function
The following factors must be evaluated at each maintenance appointment……
93
Hygiene aids…… Super - floss End tufted brushes Proxy brushes Tartar control dentrifices Mechanical instruments
94
Super - Floss Excellent for all types of implant restorations
Butler Post Care Floss AidExcellent for implant bars and fixed hybrid prostheses.
95
Butler Floss Aid is used to clean the bar including the area contacting the tissue.
96
End tufted brushes
Proxy brushes
97
Plastic scalers are appropriate for cleaning around standard abutments supporting implant bar substructures, hybrid prostheses and implant supported splinted restorations.Plastic scaler tips are also available for metal handle scalers.
Plastic scalers…
98
Implant supported fixed partial denture
Scaler tips are designed to fit the curvature of the standard abutment.
99
Prophy paste and a rubber cup on a prophy head / handpiece can be used to polish implant bars when removal is not indicated
100
Failure of implant has a multi-factorial dimension. Often many factors come together to cause the ultimate failure of the implant. One needs to identify the cause not just to treat the present condition but also as a learning experience for future treatments. Proper data collection, patient feedback, and accurate diagnostic tool will help point out the reason for failure. An early intervention is always possible if regular check-up are undertaken. As someone well said, it is not how much success we obtain, but how best we tackle complex situations and failures, that determine the skill of a clinician. No, doubt, failures are stepping stones to success but not until their etiologies are established and their occurrence is prevented.
Conclusion…
101
Misch : Contemporary implant dentistry Atlas of implant dentistry, Cranin Why do dental implants fail: part I : Askary et al ID 1999 vol8 no2 173-183Why do dental implants fail: part II : Askary et al Id 1999 vol 3 : 265-275A.S.Sclar; Soft tissue & esthetic considerations in implant dentistry.Myron Nevins; Implant therapy.Torosian J, Rosenberg ES. The failing and failed implant: a clinical, microbiologic, and treatment review. J Esthet Dent. 1993. Failures in implant dentistry.W. Chee and S. Jivraj. British Dental Journal 202, 123 - 129 (2007)
REFERENCES
102
Yoav Grossmann. Prosthetic treatment for severely misaligned implants: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:259-6.Goodacre C J, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan J Y. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J ProsthetDent 2003; 90: 121–132.Effect of implant size and shape on implant success rates: A Literature review JPD 2005;94:377-81WWW.google.com
103
104