The purpose of the present study was to assess the influence of local and systemic factors on the occurrence of dental implant failures up to the second-stage surgery (abutment connection). This retrospective study is based on 2,670 patients who received 10,096 implants and were consecutively treated with implant-supported prostheses between 1980 and 2014 at 1 specialist clinic. Several anatomic-, patient-, health-, and implant-related factors were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the patients and implants. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used at the patient level as well as the implant level to evaluate the effect of explanatory variables on the failure of implants up to abutment connection. A generalized estimating equation method was used for the implant-level analysis to account for the fact that repeated observations (several implants) were available for a single patient. Overall, 642 implants (6.36%) failed, of which 176 (1.74%) in 139 patients were lost up to second-stage surgery. The distribution of implants in sites of different bone quantities and qualities was quite similar between implants lost up to and after abutment connection. Smoking and the intake of antidepressants were the statistically significant predictors in the multivariate model (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02369562).

Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic, DDS, MSc/Tomas Albrektsson, MD, PhD/Ann Wennerberg, DDS, PhD: Purpose: The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in implant failure rates, marginal bone loss, and postoperative infection for implants inserted in bone with different qualities and quantities according to the classification of Lekholm and Zarb. Materials and Methods: An electronic search was undertaken in January 2015 for randomized and nonrandomized human clinical studies. Results: A total of 94 publications were included. When bone sites of different qualities were considered, the results suggested the following comparative implant failure rates: 1 > 2, 1 > 3, 3 > 2, 4 > 1, 4 > 2, and 4 > 3. Sensitivity analyses suggested that when implants inserted in bone qualities 1 and 2 and 1 and 3 were compared, oxidized and sandblasted/acid-etched surfaces showed a decrease in significant difference in failures compared with turned implants. The same is not true for failure of implants inserted in bone quality 4 compared to failure of implants in all other bone qualities. When bone sites of different quantities were considered, the following comparative implant failure rates were observed: A > B, A > C, A < D, B < C, B < D, C < D, E > A, E > B, E > C, E > D. Due to insufficient information, meta-analyses for the outcomes postoperative infection and marginal bone loss were not performed. Conclusion: Sites with poorer bone quality and lack of bone volume may statistically affect implant failure rates. Implant surfaces may play a role in failure of implants in different bone qualities.