• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.57 no.7
• /
• pp.372-378
• /
• 2019

The dental implants in modern dentistry brought out a new era in everyday dental practice. Increasing of dental implants usage, various failures and complications has occurred. Failures and complications of dental implant treatments that can happen in implant surgery, in mechanical or prosthetic problem and in biological aspect. The aim of this study was to assess implant failures for 6 years as well as find out how to overcome implant failure. In Jeju National University hospital, 26 dental implants in 17 patients were removed by implant failure through 2013.1.1.-2018.12.31. Each implant failure case was analyzed in report form with various informations about failure retrospectively. The present study showed 26 failed dental implants of 17 patients were removed. 13 implants(50%) of 8 patients(47.06%) were failed before functional loading and 13 implants(50%) of 9 patients(52.94%) were failed after functional loading. 11 implants(42.31%) of 7 patients(41.18%) with medical disease were extracted. 6 implants(23.08%) of 5 patients(29.41%) with additive bone graft were failed. We discuss with 26 failed dental implants of 17 patients about their causes, solutions and prevention retrospectively for 6 past years. Precise diagnosis and treatment planning are needed. Medically compromised patients and patients with implants and additive bone grafts should be cautiously treated with high failing possibilities.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.54 no.4
• /
• pp.258-273
• /
• 2016

In spite of appropriate treatment of peri-implantitis, the peri-implant bone loss was keep going, the clinician should remove the osseointegrated implant. the conventional methods are like a extraction of natural teeth, and use of trephine drills. In these days, many exclusive instruments are invented by implant companies. these instruments can make easy, least invasive, less traumatic removal of osseointegrated implants. In generally peri-implant bone loss progress steadily less sign and symptoms that the patient do not want to remove their implants. However, the failure of dental implant is big burden to clinicians and also patients. In the dental implant treatment, there is no 'failure' but only is 'replacement' or 'change'.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.46 no.3
• /
• pp.162-173
• /
• 2020

Dental implants are the first option for replacement of missing teeth. Failure usually involves additional cost and procedures. As a result, the physician should limit the risk factors associated with implant failures. Implant site is one of many factors that can influence the success or failure of dental implants. The association between early implant failure (EIF) and implant site has yet to be documented. This review aims to estimate the impact of insertion site on the percentage of EIFs. An electronic and manual search of studies that reported early failure of dental implants based on collection site. A total of 21 studies were included in the review and examined for the association between EIF and alveolar site. Subgroup analysis, including a comparison between implants inserted in four alveolar ridge regions of both jaws was performed. The early failure rate was higher for maxillary implants (3.14%) compared to mandibular implants (1.96%). Applying a random effect, risk ratio (RR), and confidence interval (CI) of 95% revealed higher failure in the maxilla compared to the mandible (RR 1.41; 95% CI [1.19, 1.67]; P<0.0001; I²=58%). The anterior maxilla is more critical for early implant loss than other alveolar bone sites. Implants in the anterior mandible exhibited the best success rate compared of the sites.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.149-150
• /
• 2021

Bruxism is defined as a parafunctional activity during sleep or while awake that includes locking and grinding of teeth and clenching. It generates excessive occlusal force that may lead to implant failure. Therefore, diagnosis of bruxism and providing specific protocols such as occlusal splint and/or injection of botulinum toxin before implant installation are important to prevent increases the risk of implant failure in bruxism patients.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.49 no.5
• /
• pp.287-298
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the prevalence of early implant failure using a single implant system and to identify the factors contributing to early implant failure. Methods: Patients who received implant treatment with a single implant system ($Luna^{(R)}$, Shinhung, Seoul, Korea) at Dankook University Dental Hospital from 2015 to 2017 were enrolled. The following data were collected for analysis: sex and age of the patient, seniority of the surgeon, diameter and length of the implant, position in the dental arch, access approach for sinus-floor elevation, and type of guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure. The effect of each predictor was evaluated using the crude hazard ratio and the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) in univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, respectively. Results: This study analyzed 1,031 implants in 409 patients, who comprised 169 females and 240 males with a median age of 54 years (interquartile range [IQR], 47-61 years) and were followed up for a median of 7.2 months (IQR, 5.6-9.9 months) after implant placement. Thirty-five implants were removed prior to final prosthesis delivery, and the cumulative survival rate in the early phase at the implant level was 95.6%. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that seniority of the surgeon (residents: aHR=2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-5.94) and the jaw in which the implant was placed (mandible: aHR=2.31; 95% CI, 1.12-4.76) exerted statistically significant effects on early implant failure after adjusting for sex, age, dimensions of the implant, and type of GBR procedure (preoperative and/or simultaneous) (P<0.05). Conclusions: Prospective studies are warranted to further elucidate the factors contributing to early implant failure. In the meantime, surgeons should receive appropriate training and carefully select the bone bed in order to minimize the risk of early implant failure.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.135-140
• /
• 2019

Objectives: This study sought to investigate the association between the systemic intake of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and the early failure of dental implants. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study involving 1,918 dental implants in 592 patients (69 implants in 24 PPI users and 1,849 implants in 568 nonusers, respectively) was conducted. The effect of PPI intake on the osseointegration of dental implants was evaluated using patientand implant-level models. Results: Among 24 PPI users, two patients experienced implant failure, one of whom had three and the other of whom had one failed implant, respectively. Thus, the rate of failure for this population was 8.3%. Separately, 11 nonusers each experienced one implant failure, and the failure rate for these patients was 1.9%. Fisher's exact test revealed statistically significant differences between PPI users and nonusers at the implant level (P=0.002) but failed to show any significance at the patient level (P=0.094). The odds of implant failure were 4.60 times greater among PPI users versus nonusers. Dental implants that were placed in patients using PPIs were found to be 4.30 times more likely to fail prior to loading. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that PPI intake may be associated with an increased risk of early dental implant failure.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.178-183
• /
• 2001

Since the introduction of the concept of osseointegration, the success rate of dental implant has increased dramatically. So, the uses of dental implant in the treatment of partially or fully edentulous patients have played an important role in dental rehabilitation. Regardless of high success rate of dental implant, some amounts of fixtures cannot help failing. We can classify dental implant failure according to timing, causative factor, etc. This study is focused on dental implant fixture failure, occurring during preprosthetic stage. There are various reasons that cause implant failure on this periods, such as improper patient selection, poor bone quality, and periimplantitis, etc. We investigate the survival rate of 1058 fixtures, which installed in 306 patients in our clinic from January 1997 to December 1999, according to type, sex, location, fixture length and width, using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and to compare each other with log-rank test. Overall survival rate was 96.80%, and 33 implants failed over the preprosthetic stage. Our survey data identified posterior location of mandible as being associated with implant failure(P<0.05).

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.240-245
• /
• 2015

Objectives: This study was performed to evaluate patterns of failure time after insertion, failure rate according to loading time after insertion, and the patterns of failure after loading. Materials and Methods: A total of 331 mini-implants were classified into the non-failure group (NFG) and failure group (FG), which was divided into failed group before loading (FGB) and failed group after loading (FGA). Orthodontic force was applied to both the NFG and FGA. Failed mini-implants after insertion, ratio of FGA to NFG according to loading time after insertion, and failed mini-implants according to failed time after loading were analyzed. Results: Percentages of failed mini-implants after insertion were 15.79%, 36.84%, 12.28%, and 10.53% at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks, respectively. Mini-implant failure demonstrated a peak from 4 to 5 weeks after insertion. The failure rates according to loading time after insertion were 13.56%, 8.97%, 11.32%, and 5.00% at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks, respectively. Percentages of failed mini-implants after loading were 13.79%, 24.14%, 20.69%, and 6.9% at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks, respectively. Conclusion: Mini-implant stability is typically acquired 12 to 16 weeks after insertion, and immediate loading can cause failure of the mini-implant. Failure after loading was observed during the first 12 weeks.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.165-180
• /
• 2007

Dental Implants have been proved to be successful prosthetic modality in edentulous patients for 10 years. However, there are few reports on the survival of implant according to location in molar regions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the $4{\sim}5$ years' cumulative survival rate and the cause of failure of dental implants in different locations for maxillary and mandibular molars. Among the implants placed in molar regions in Gwangju Mir Dental Hospital from Jan. 2001 to Jun. 2002, 473 implants from 166 patients(age range; $26{\sim}75$) were followed and evaluated retrospectively for the causes of failure. We included 417 implants in 126 periodontally compromised patients, 56 implants in 40 periodontal healthy patients, and 205 maxillary and 268 mandibular molar implants. Implant survival rates by various subject factors, surgical factors, fixture factors, and prosthetic factors at each location were compared using Chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival analysis was done for follow-up(FU) periods. The overall failure rate at 5 years was 1O.2%(subject level) and 5.5%(implant level). The overall survival rates of implants during the FU periods were 94.5% with 91.3% in maxillary first molar, 91.1% in maxillary second molar, 99.2% in mandibular first molar and 94,8% in mandibular second molar regions. The survival rates differed significantly between both jaws and among different implant locations(p<0.05), whereas the survival rates of functionally loaded implants were similar in different locations. The survival rates were not different according to gender, age, previous periodontal status, surgery stage, bone graft type, or the prosthetic type. The overall survival rate was low in dental implant of too wide diameter(${\geq}5.75$ mm) and the survival rate was significantly lower for wider implant diameter(p

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.52 no.3
• /
• pp.230-241
• /
• 2022

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate failed implants and reimplantation survival and to identify the relative risk factors for implant re-failure. Methods: Ninety-one dental implants were extracted between 2006 and 2020 at the National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, including 56 implants in the maxilla and 35 implants in the mandible that were removed from 77 patients. Patient information (e.g., age, sex, and systemic diseases) and surgical information (e.g., the date of surgery and location of the implants and bone grafts) were recorded. If an implant prosthesis was used, prosthesis information was also recorded. Results: In total, 91 first-time failed dental implants in 77 patients were analyzed. Of them, 69 implants in 61 patients received reimplantation after failure. Sixteen patients (22 implants) refused reimplantation or received reimplantation at a different site. Eight of the 69 reimplants failed again. The 1-year survival rate of the 69 reimplants was 89.4%. Age at reimplantation and smoking significantly increased the risk of reimplantation failure. However, a history of taking anti-thrombotic agents showed a statistically significant negative association with reimplantation failure. Of the failed implants, 66% showed early failure and 34% showed late failure of the initial implantation. All 8 re-failed implants showed early failure. Only 3 of these 8 failed reimplants were re-tried and the second reimplants all survived. Conclusions: The total survival rate of implants, which included reimplants and second reimplants was 99.2%, although the survival rate of the initial implantations was 96.3%. Previous failure did not affect the success of the next trial. Reimplantation failure was more strongly affected by patient factors than by implant factors. Therefore, each patient's specific factors need to be meticulously controlled to achieve successful reimplantation.