Hannah, A Liss
| Hannah, A Liss |
Hannah, A Liss, Jonathan Korostoff, Yu Chang Cheng
Periodontics, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine
Introduction
The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the potential risk factors that lead to implant failure in a dental school setting.
Methods
A retrospective review of 50 patients’ dental records at The University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine was performed. Patients identified were treated in the Post-Graduate Periodontal Clinic and the Penn Dental Faculty Practice. This review included patients with one or more implants removed between July 3, 2019, and December 13, 2021. Recorded data included: gender; age; medical history; implant location; implant brand and size; torque value at placement; cover screw or healing abutment placed at initial placement; complications at the time of placement; time elapsed between placement date and date of removal; type of restoration placed on the implant; type of the antibiotic prescribed at the time of implant placement; reason for failure.
Results
50 patients were included in the study. All patients identified were over the age of 37, with the majority older than 55 years of age. The implant survival period ranged from 21 days to 11 years. Most failed implants were located in the posterior segments of both jaws, with the most common reason for implant failure being lack of osseointegration or peri-implantitis. Moreover, it was noted that if a patient had one implant failure, another implant was likely to fail as well. Additionally, 12 out of 60 implant failures came from the school’s faculty practice. Data such as a history of tobacco use, heart disease, diabetes, drug allergy, type of antibiotic given post-operatively, type of implant placed, initial torque value, and complication at the time of placement do not appear to impact the risk of implant failure significantly.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of this study, potential risk factors for implant failure in a dental school setting include patients of advanced age and a previous implant failure. Furthermore, the amount of surgical experience of the clinician may also play a role due to the greater number of failures seen in the post-doctoral clinic versus the faculty practice.