RFs (log rank, p = 0.006)
Fig. 2. The cumulative survival rates for the different RF groups revealing a significant difference for patients without any and patients with local and systemic RFs (log rank, p = 0.006)
Fig. 1. On Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, the cumulative survival rate was 91.5%
Fig. 1. On Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, the cumulative survival rate was 91.5%
Region
Systemic RF
Local RF
Immediate procedure
Bone grafting
Time of failure (months...
Systemic RF
No. of implants (n = 31)
No. of patients (n = 14)
Local RF
No. of implants (n = 100)
...
Saridakis, S.K., Wagner, W. & Noelken, R. Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data.
Int J Implant Dent 4, 41 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0151-5
Download citation
Received: 20 May 2018
Accepted: 24 October 2018
Published: 17 December 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10...
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were m...
This article contains data obtained during follow-up in a cohort of patients treated with a CE-certified implant in a University Medical Center. Since the product is already approved in accordance with the German Medical Devices Act, no additional ethics approval was not required for treatment. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical sta...
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery – Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany
Sotirios Konstantinos Saridakis, Wilfried Wagner & Robert Noelken
Private Practice for Oral Surgery, Lindau/Lake Constance, Germany
Robert Noelken
You can also search for this author in
PubMed Go...
Not applicable
The work was supported by the Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center, Mainz.
The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is partially included within the article. The SPSS data can be given on demand of the editor.
Schropp L, Isidor F, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A. Patient experience of, and satisfaction with, delayed-immediate vs delayed single-tooth implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15:498–503.
Download references
August M, Chung K, Chang Y, Glowacki J. Influence of estrogen status on endosseous implant osseointegration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59:1285–9.
Hultin M, Gustafsson A, Hallstrom H, Johansson LA, Ekfeldt A, Klinge B. Microbiological findings and host response in patients with periimplantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:349–58.
Heitz-Mayfield LJA. Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and...
Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Diabetes and oral implant failure: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2014;93(9):859–67.
Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ. Dental implants in the diabetic patient: a retrospective study. Implant Dent. 1999;8:355–9.
Fiorellini JP, Chen PK, Nevins M, Nevins ML. A retrospective study of dental implants in diabetic patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2...
Kramer FJ, Baethge C, Swennen G, Bremer B, Schwestka-Polly R, Dempf R. Dental implants in patients with orofacial clefts: a long-term follow-up study. Int JOral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34:715–21.
Ortega-Martinez J, Perez-Pascual T, Mareque-Bueno S, Hernandez-Alfaro F, Ferres-Padro E. Immediate implants following tooth extraction. A systemic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17(2):e251â€...
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Population Estimates and 2014 National Projections. [Zitiert:18.12.2014]. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2014/demo/popproj/2014-summary-tables.html.
Ikebe K, Wada M, Kagawa R, Maeda Y. Is old age a risk factor for dental implants? Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2009;45:59–64.
Hu SC, Lan CE. High-glucose environment disturbs the physiologic functions of keratinocytes: focusing o...
This study was based on the recruitment of a quite heterogeneous group of patients treated with NobelActive implants, for the purpose of investigating the influence of local and systemic risk factors on implant survival and marginal bone levels. It can be considered that the presence of local or systemic risk factors does not influence implant survival whereas the combination of local and systemic...
A major weakness of the study is the relative small size of the group with systemic RFs (14 implants by 6 patients) as well as of the group with systematic and local RFs (17 implants by 6 patients). Because of the relative small size of the sample, this study can provide the basis for further investigations based on larger patient samples.
The survival rate for 93 implants in 45 patients with no RFs was 94.8%. Moraschini et al. [44] have exhibited in their systematic review, based on 7711 implants, similar SRs with cumulative mean values of 94.6%. Moreover, in the subcohort of our study, by 44 of the above 93, implants were performed immediate procedures (25 immediate implantations, 35 immediate restorations, 16 both of them) so the...
In one patient with three implants and long intake of corticosteroids against rheumatoid arthritis (7.5 mg prednisolone per day for at least 2 years), no complication was detected in our study. Long-term use of corticosteroids can also lead to implant failures, according to Wood and Vermilyea [34] by modifying the patient’s response to bacterial infection [35], but at the present time, there i...
Most implant studies deal only with local risk factors, although the existence of systemic risk factors plays a significant role to the implant survival. We use the NobelActive dental implant in this study in order to investigate if this promising implant with the special design could achieve better survival rates in difficult situations with several risk factors. The present study revealed no sta...
Regarding the implant shoulder level, the average interproximal marginal bone level was − 0.49 ± 0.83 mm (range, 0 to − 3.3 mm) at the mesial aspect and − 0.51 ± 0.82 mm (range, 0 to − 3.9 mm) at the distal aspect of the implants.
When the marginal bone level was considered as a function of time, there was no strict correlation between the marginal bone status and th...
Ninety-eight patients with 207 implants complied with the treatment protocol attended the follow-up.
During the follow-up period, 15 implants failed in 12 patients. Age and gender were not correlated with a lower implant survival. The implant losses occurred in a time range between 0.5 and 39 months following implant placement (mean 7.3 ± 11.1 months). The reasons for implant failure were ...
Subpopulations within the study group (immediate vs. delayed placement) were compared using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney non-parametric U test. The reported p values were two sided. All calculations were carried out using SPSS for Mac, Version 22 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Preservation of all alveolar socket walls via longitudinal extraction after periotomy avoiding oro-vestibular luxation.
Meticulous cleaning of the extraction site.
Placement of rather long implants that allow for a high level of primary stability.
Implant dimensions were as follows: implant length 8.5Â mm, 24 implants; 10Â mm, 6 implants; 11.5Â mm, 64 implants; 13Â mm, 80 implants; 15Â mm, 31 i...
These patients received a total of 207 NobelActive implants (Nobel Biocare, Zurich, Switzerland) placed by two experienced surgeons. Between November 2011 and February 2015, 188 implants were placed in the maxilla, and 19 implants in the mandible. All implant placement procedures were conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. Fi...
One hundred and ten patients were invited for follow-up evaluation. All patients were treated in the period from 10/2008 to 02/2015 in the Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz. Inclusion criteria were as follows: implant placement of a NobelActive implant, study subjects over 18Â years old, residual bone dimension in the edentulous region of at least 5Â mm in h...
Primary stability is a prerequisite for successful osseointegration and remains the most significant factor for the survival of dental implants [16]. Therefore, current research focuses on amelioration of existing augmentation techniques and materials or on the development of new implants with self-tapping properties for improving bone contact as well for increasing primary stability.
The aim of ...
Based on published demographic data, the median age of the world population constantly increases [1]. This has led to an increase in the number of dental implants inserted in senior individuals with local and systemic risk factors [2]. Nevertheless, despite numerous studies having been conducted on this topic, the results remain controversial, almost 50Â years after the first dental implant placem...
This retrospective study examined the mid- to long-term clinical and radiographic performance of a tapered implant in various treatment protocols in patients with local and systemic risk factors (RFs).
Two hundred seven NobelActive implants were inserted in 98 patients in the period from 10/2008 to 02/2015. The subdivision of the cohort was defined by local (n = 40), systemic (n = 6), loc...
Â
Figure 15. Intra-oral radiograph showing the implant 12Â months after placement
Â
Figure 14. Clinical view showing optimal esthetics around the screw-retained definitive all-ceramic crown
Â
Figure 13. Situation after implant placement and repair of the bony defect with a 1:1 mixture of Bio-Oss® and autologous bone
Â
Â
Figure 12. The impacted canine has become visible after elevation of a full-thickness palatal flap and removing overlying bone
Â
Figure 11. CBCT image showing the palatal location of the impacted secondary canine
Â
Figure 10. Clinical view showing the failing right primary canine
Â
Figure 9. Intra-oral radiograph showing the implant 12 months after placement
Â
Figure 8. Clinical view showing optimal esthetics around the screw-retained definitive all-ceramic crown
Â
Figure 7. Clinical view immediately after placement of the provisional implant crown
Â
Figure 6. Situation after implant placement and restoration of the bony defect with a 1:1 mixture of Bio-Oss® and autologous bone
Â
Figure 5. The implant is placed in the prepared socket
Â
Figure 4. The prepared implant socket and osseous defect resulting from removal of the buccally impacted secondary canine and the primary canine. Note that the upper part of the alveolar crest is intact
Â
Figure 3. The impacted canine has become visible after elevation of a full-thickness buccal mucoperiosteal flap and removing overlying bone
Â
Figure 2. CBCT image showing the buccal location of the impacted secondary canine
Â
Figure 1. Clinical view showing the failing right primary canine
Discussion
This case report describes two approaches for immediate replacement of a failing primary canine and an impacted secondary canine, viz. one for impacted cuspids located at the buccal side of the maxilla and one for impacted cuspids located at the palatal side of the maxilla, by an immediately placed and provisionalized single implant. With both approaches, esthetically satisfying ...
Case 2
A 45-year-old man consulted our department with an impacted right maxillary canine and a persistent primary canine with evident mobility and in need of removal (Fig. 10). The patient chose for a single implant treatment because he wanted to have a long lasting and fixed solution for the failing tooth. All general health prerequisites were met and intra-oral examination revealed a healthy, ...
Next, an open tray impression was made at implant level using a custom acrylic resin impression tray (Lightplast base plates; Dreve Dentamid GmbH, Unna, Germany) and a polyether impression material (Impregum Penta; 3 M ESPE, St. Paul, USA). Finally, a healing abutment (NobelReplace; Nobel Biocare AB) was placed, and any remaining residual space between the implant and the buccal bone wall was fill...
One day before surgery, the patient started taking antibiotics (amoxicillin 500 mg, three times daily for 7 days) and using a 0.2 % chlorhexidine mouthwash (Corsodyl; GlaxoSmithKline, Utrecht, the Netherlands) for oral disinfection. Following the administering of local anesthesia (Ultracaine D-S Forte; Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), an incision was made on the palata...
Case presentation
Case 1
A 36-year-old woman consulted the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, with a persisting upper right primary canine and impacted secondary canine (Fig. 1). The primary canine had to be removed because of fracture of the crown. The patient did not want to undergo orthodontic treatment, and a...
Background
Maxillary canines are the second most impacted teeth (20 % of all impacted teeth); the prevalence in general population is approximately 2 %. Most impacted cuspids are located palatally, with a palatal/buccal ratio of 8:1.
There are several known treatment options for impacted canines to align them into the dental arch. The most widely used option is orthodontic traction after surgi...
Immediate placement and provisionalization of an implant after removal of an impacted maxillary canine: two case reports
Â
Â
Abstract
Single immediate implant replacement is accompanied by excellent survival rates and a favorable esthetic outcome. The objective of this report was to describe a surgical approach for removal of a buccal or palatally located impacted secondary canine, com...