|
 
 |
| LETTER TO EDITOR |
|
| Year : 2013 | Volume
: 1
| Issue : 1 | Page : 27-28 |
|
Dental implant complications as an increasing annoyance in prosthodontics: An overview
Prince Kumar
Department of Prosthodontics, Shree Bankey Bihari Dental College and Research Centre, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
| Date of Web Publication | 16-Aug-2013 |
Correspondence Address:
Prince Kumar
Department of Prosthodontics, Shree Bankey Bihari Dental College and Research Centre, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2347-4610.116600
How to cite this article:
Kumar P. Dental implant complications as an increasing annoyance in prosthodontics: An overview. Eur J Prosthodont 2013;1:27-8 |
Sir,
Dental implant is one of the restorative methods to replace missing teeth. As implants are directly anchored and affixed into bones, they provide marked stability, a more esthetic appearance, as well as minimize the risk of alveolar bone resorption and atrophy. In today's time, dental implant surgery has become increasingly popular treatment in dentistry and is generally considered to be a safe surgical procedure with a higher success rate. [1],[2] However, complications must be taken into consideration because they can severely affect the future clinical outcomes. Nonetheless, implant failure may be considered as the status of the implant performance that, when using some quantitative measurements, falls below an acceptable level. Consequently, this includes several clinical conditions, implant mobility, more than 0.2 mm periapical bone loss, probing depth more than 5 mm, etc. The term "failing implant" is used for an implant showing the above signs in a "slow and continuous" manner. [1],[3]
Literature has identified following major categories of complications associated with implant retained/supported prostheses: Surgical complications, implant loss, bone loss, peri-implant soft tissue complications, mechanical complications, and esthetic/phonetic complications. Implant failures associated with overloading comprise those conditions where the functional load applied to the implants exceeds the capacity of the bone to withstand it. Hsu and associates explored more than 2,087 publications and concluded occlusal overloading as primary etiological factor in biomechanical implant treatment complications, which commonly include marginal bone loss, fracture of resin/ceramic veneers and porcelain, retention device or denture base fracture of implant-supported overdentures, loosening or fracture of abutment screws, and even implant failure. [2],[4] Consequently, implant failures related to the implant and abutment interface is most likely caused by unfavorable and poor loading conditions or induced by the inadvertent prosthetic procedure. Healing phase or active osseo integration stage is most commonly assaulted by bacterial infections leading to hassle complications viz., swelling, fistulas, suppuration, and early/late mucosal dehiscence. Nevertheless, any signs of infection either early or late cannot be employed alone to determine the final fate of an implant, but should be carefully assessed using other parameters such as radiographic bony changes and mobility. [5],[6] One of the most frequently clinically noticeable sign of implant failure is mobility that can occasionally be present without any radiographic bony alteration. Initially, the concept of reverse-torque test was put forwarded to evaluate mobility at the time of primary stability; however, modern periotest instruments can better appraise the actual bony conditions around implant. Undoubtedly, prevention is the best way to manage possible biomechanical complications and because there is only few clinical studies that simultaneously evaluate all or most of the categories of complications, authors expect some newer long-term studies to validate and set up certain clinical guidelines in this perspective.
| References | |  |
| 1. | Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:121-32. 
[PUBMED] |
| 2. | Hsu YT, Fu JH, Al-Hezaimi K, Wang HL. Biomechanical implant treatment complications: A systematic review of clinical studies of implants with at least 1 year of functional loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:894-904.
[PUBMED] |
| 3. | Schwartz-Arad D, Laviv A, Levin L. Failure causes, timing, and cluster behavior: An 8-year study of dental implants. Implant Dent 2008;17:200-7.
[PUBMED] |
| 4. | Mombelli A, Lang NP. Clinical parameters for the evaluation of dental implants. Periodontol 2000 1994;4:81-6.
|
| 5. | Esposito M, Hirsch J, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Differential diagnosis and treatment strategies for biologic complications and failing oral implants: A review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:473-90.
|
| 6. | Johns RB, Jemt T, Heath MR, Hutton JE, McKenna S, McNamara DC, et al. A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:513-22.6.
|
|
Search Pubmed for