Chrcanovic et al. 20171818. Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival of dental implants placed in sites of previously failed implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Nov;28(11):1348-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12992
https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12992...
|
98 |
159 |
Rough (including sandblasted, acid-etched, sandblasted + acid-etched) or machined surface |
13.5 ± 17.3 (0–132.8) |
98.8 ± 84.6 (0.5–308.9) |
NR |
42 |
29.2 ± 31.3 (1–158.9) |
73.6 |
NR |
NR |
after failure of previous implant |
|
Location: NR |
|
Manor et al. 20091919. Manor Y, Oubaid S, Mardinger O, Chaushu G, Nissan J. Characteristics of early versus late implant failure: a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Dec;67(12):2649-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.07.050
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.07.0...
|
40 |
40 |
Rough surface (sandblasted and acid etched with or without hydroxyapatite) |
4.7 |
63 |
0 |
0 |
— |
100 |
— |
NR |
after removal of failed implants |
35 |
35 |
Rough surface (sandblasted and acid etched with or without hydroxyapatite) |
6.3 |
44 |
3 |
3 |
NR |
92 |
— |
NR |
after removal of failed implants |
Location: posterior mandible |
Wang et al. 20152020. Wang F, Zhang Z, Monje A, Huang W, Wu Y, Wang G. Intermediate long-term clinical performance of dental implants placed in sites with a previous early implant failure: a retrospective analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Dec;26(12):1443-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12485
https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12485...
|
66 |
67 |
Straumann®
|
6.3 ± 3.1 (3–14) |
69.4 ± 27.7 (20–114) |
2 |
2 |
One before prosthesis delivery. |
94.6 |
Peri-implantitis: 1 (50%) Unknown: 1 (50%) |
90.6 |
SLA |
after removal 1 of failed implants |
Location: 32, 41 |
One 20- months after loading. |
Early failure: 1 (50%) Late failure: 1 (50%) |
He et al. 20142121. He J, Shang YW, Deng CF, Shang DH, Zhang C, Wang DN et al. [A clinical retrospective analysis of dental implants replaced in previously failed sites]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2014 Apr;23(2):196-200. Chinese.
|
12 |
15 |
NR |
6.8 ± 4.4 after removal of failed implants |
33.5 ± 15.4 (17.3–78.8) |
0 |
0 |
— |
100 |
— |
NR |
Mardinger et al. 20121010. Mardinger O, Ben Zvi Y, Chaushu G, Nissan J, Manor Y. A retrospective analysis of replacing dental implants in previously failed sites. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012 Sep;114(3):290-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.07.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.0...
|
144 |
144 |
NR |
4.8 ± 5.45 (1–36) |
48 ± 1.27 (12–180) |
11 |
11 Location: NR |
NR |
93 |
Lack of ossoeintegration: 2 (19%) Overload: 1 (9%)
|
NR |
after failure of previous implant |
Unknown: 8 (72%) Early failure: 2 (18.2%) Late failure: 9 (81.8%) |
Quaranta et al. 20122727. Quaranta A, Cicconetti A, Battaglia L, Piemontese M, Pompa G, Vozza I. Crestal bone remodeling around platform switched, immediately loaded implants placed in sites of previous failures. Eur J Inflamm. 2012 May;10(2): 115-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1721727X120100S222
https://doi.org/10.1177/1721727X120100S2...
|
10 |
16 |
Winsix® immediately loaded, platform-switched, SLA |
NR |
36 |
0 |
0 |
— |
100 |
— |
93.75 |
Kim et al. 20102323. Kim YK, Park JY, Kim SG, Lee HJ. Prognosis of the implants replaced after removal of failed dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010 Sep;110(3):281-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.01.031
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.0...
|
49 |
60 |
NR |
2.40 ± 3.06 after removal of failed implants, in cases of delayed placement (48.3% of the implants were immediately placed; n = 29) |
22.00 ± 14.56 after fixture delivery |
NR |
7 Location: NR |
NR |
88.3 |
NR |
NR |
Machtei et al. 20082424. Machtei EE, Mahler D, Oettinger-Barak O, Zuabi O, Horwitz J. Dental implants placed in previously failed sites: survival rate and factors affecting the outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Mar;19(3):259-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01466.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007...
|
56 |
79 |
3i® Zimmer®
|
6.75 ± 1.12 (0–49) |
29.91 ± 2.01 (7–78) |
NR |
13 Location: maxilla: 8/42 (19%) mandible: 5/37 (13.9%) l-C: 4/21 (19%) PM: 3/23 (13.1%) M: 6/35 (17.4%) |
NR |
83.5 |
NR |
NR |
Steri-Oss® MIS®
|
after removal of failed implants |
Grossmann and Levin. 20072525. Grossmann Y, Levin L. Success and survival of single dental implants placed in sites of previously failed implants. J Periodontol. 2007 Sep;78(9):1670-4. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.060516
https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.060516...
|
28 |
31 |
3i® Zimmer®
|
5.8 ± 5.2 (0–26) |
19.4 ±11.4 (6–46) |
8 |
9 Location: posterior mandible: 5/1 0 (50%) anterior mandible: 3/5 (60%) posterior maxilla: 0/10 (0%) anterior maxilla: 1/6 (16.7%) |
3.22 ± 2.31 |
71 |
NR |
71 |
MIS®
|
after removal of failed implants |
Alsaadi et al. 20062626. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. The importance of implant surface characteristics in the replacement of failed implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):270-4.
|
41 |
58 |
Nobel ® machined (n = 29) |
04/jun |
NR |
NR |
7 Location: posterior mandible: 2/12 (16.7%) |
11.43 ± 6.7 (3–24) |
87.9 (overall) |
NR Machined surface was associated with higher failure rate. |
NR |
Nobel ® TiUnite (n = 29) |
after removal of failed implants |
anterior mandible: 0/8 (0%) posterior maxilla: 3/22 (13.6%) anterior maxilla: 2/16 (12.5%) |
79.3 (machined) 96.6 (TiUnite) |