Dental Implant Design One of the most significant developments in dentistry is the effective replacement of natural teeth lost through implant osseointegrated. Experience gained from clinical trials has created a consensus about a variety of the requirements for placing and techniques that maximize the likelihood of long-term durability and functionality.
The use of dental implants in the rehabilitation of teeth for fully and partially edentulous people has dramatically expanded the range of clinical dentistry, allowing for new treatment options for complex cases where functional rehabilitation was once limited or not sufficient. The reliability and longevity of dental implants are extensively documented, both for fixed and removable prostheses. The majority of studies have reported long-term success rates of more than 90% for implants that have been placed in completely dentally edentulous six to eight as well as partially severely edentulous patients.
DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGN SUCCESS RATES
However, the success rates have been reported to differ across different regions of the mouth as well as in different patients. For instance less success rates have been observed for maxillary implants compared to mandibular implants. A number of attempts have been undertaken to identify the causes that may hinder the implant’s success. Factors like material biocompatibility with implant design, surgical technique, surface host bed and loading conditions have been proven to affect implant’s osteointegration. Bone volume available has been long thought to be as a crucial factor to ensure implant predictability. Studies have shown more failure rates with implants less than 10mm. Another significant element in implant success is the density of bone, since greater failure rates have been observed for areas that have poor quality bone, such as those in the posterior maxilla.
Therefore, changes to implant body design and surfaces have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of low-quality bone by, in theory, getting better anchorage and supplying greater surface area that reduces stress on soft bone forms. In an experiment with rabbits, Carlsson 22 observed the most complete bone-to-implant interaction with screw-shaped implants than double cylinders or T-shaped implants. Additionally, it was demonstrated that the strongest biomechanical bond was created when the implant’s surface was rough as opposed to a similar and polished surface for the implant. Additionally, several in vivo studies have confirmed that rough surfaces are better suited to integrate implants than a smoother surface of the implant, by showing a greater degree in bone integration.
Surface roughness could affect the level of osteointegration. In particular, the dimensions and distribution of peaks and valleys that make up the roughness of the surface can greatly affect the overall quality of the mechanical interlocking at an implant-bone connection. However, the quality of the surface is not the only element that can affect the process of osseointegration. Implant design could impact the surgical insertion (e.g. stability) as well as the bone-implant interface after occlusal load. Surface conditions and implant design are two independent factors that affect implant success rates. This article examines Dental Implant Design and Its Relationship to Long-Term Implant Success.
