Dental Implants Success and Failure | Annotated Bibliography

Running head: HEALTHCARE 1
Dental biomaterials
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

HEALTHCARE 2
Introduction
Tooth decay has been identified as a growing problem all across the world and it
affects majority of children and adults (Peres et al., 2019). The American Dental Association
recommends several products for preventing tooth decay and dental implant is one amongst
them (ADA, 2020). This article will contain an annotated bibliography of five articles related
to dental implants success and failure.
Article 1
Despite the fact that dental implants are established to be predictable for long-term
management of tooth problems, the authors recognised that successful implants should
always remain completely healthy and functional within oral cavities. The survival rate for
dental implant was found to be as much as 92.6% in mandible, thereby emphasising them to
be an obvious solution for the restoration of a partially or completely edentulous dentition
(Clark & Levin, 2016). The article elaborated on the anatomical differences between implants
and teeth, and suggested that upon placing an implant, the keratinized tissue that typically
surrounds the tooth crown is regarded as peri-implant tissues. The authors highlighted on
peri-implantitis that is a matter of utmost concern, in relation to dental implant placement,
and is characterized by alterations in the crestal bone level, in combination with
bleeding. The article elucidated findings from a study conducted amongst 588 implant
patients in 2016 where 45% patients were affected with peri-implantitis.
The authors also identified several risk factors associated with the condition with poor
oral hygiene being the most substantial risk factor, having and odds ratio of 14.3. They also
established the strong correlation of peri-implantitis with smoking, since tobacco
consumption brings about an alteration in microbiome, and also promotes bacterial
colonization, apart from increasing the marginal loss of bone, when compared to non-

HEALTHCARE 3
smoking patients. In addition, patients having history of diabetes mellitus for periodontal
disease were also correlated with high risk for the condition. The authors highlighted that
with the aim of ensuring dental implant success, oral hygiene must be incorporated during the
planning stage (Clark & Levin, 2016). Moreover, mechanical removal of plaque was also
highlighted to be the most beneficial preventive strategy for successful implants. Not only did
the article elaborate on practice guidelines for oral homecare such as, the modified bass
technique, flossing or use of interdental brushes, but also elaborated on professional care for
health maintenance, disease control, and follow up of patients.
Article 2
The researchers aimed to evaluate the implant success and survival rate with single
or countless risk factors, in a retrospective study having a follow up 10-18 years. The
research was based on the premise that appropriate implementation of both laboratory and
clinical phases ensure success of implant rehabilitation. The researchers also identified the
presence of risk factors that create barriers in implant therapy like diabetes, osteoporosis,
chemotherapy, Crohn’s disease, radiotherapy and hyperthyroidism (De Angelis et al., 2017).
A sample of 255 patients containing 871 implants was selected, following which the risk
factors of bone augmentation, smoking, bruxism, and load risk presence were
considered. Upon subdividing the failures into two short-term and long-term phases, the
researchers determined success criteria and also performed regression analysis. It was found
that 138 of the 871 implants failed to appropriately meet the criteria, with the success rate of
84.16%.
43.47% were categorised as early failure, in addition to 56.53% that were classified as
late failure. The researchers also found that 70 dental implants were in total removed, and had
a survival rate of as much as 91.6%. Not only did the researchers elaborate on the impact of
smoking in decreasing the capacity of migration of stromal cells, near the surface of the