Journal of Dental Medicine

Background and Aims: According to the importance of primary stability on dental implant success and osseointegration, we intend to check and compare the stability and crestal bone loss rate between osteotomy technique and conventional implant insertion techniques.
Materials and Methods: In this study, 26 implants in anterior segment of maxilla in 13 patients were evaluated. The implants were TBR system (Toulouse, France) with 3.5 diameter and 10.5-12 mm length. The implant stability level was recorded immediately after surgery and 3 months later with Ostell mentor. The periapical radiography was taken immediately after surgery, 3 and 6 months to assess crestal bone resorption. Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed Rank test used for data analysis.
Results: There were no statistically differences between the two treatments techniques in terms of stability (P>0.05). The mean crestal resorption was higher for the osteotomy technique 3 months after implant insertion (P<0.001) but there were no significant differences after 6 months (P=0.678).
Conclusion: Within the limitations of the current study, it can be concluded that the osteotomy it can be considered as a treatment technique in insufficient bone width.

Background and Aims: Despite significant advancements in rehabilitation of edentulism with implants, complications such as implant failure before and after prosthetic loading remain concerns. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of dental implant failure before and after prosthetic loading in some of Yazd dental clinics between 2018 and 2023.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 1060 patients’ files from three public dental clinics were reviewed. These patients were treated by dental implants between April 2018 and June 2023. The collected data included patients’ age and gender, implant diameter, brand, and placement site, type of prosthesis, and fixture failure after surgical and prosthetic phases. Data were statistically analyzed by independent t-tests and chi-square tests.
Results: The mean age of patients was 55.25 ± 12.37 years and 56.3% were female. The frequency of overall implant failure was 3.4%. The implant failure rate after prosthetic loading was 2.8% in females and 2.3% in males (P=0.47). This rate was 2% and 1.9% for maxillary and mandibular implants, respectively (P=0.5). This amount was 2.4% in molar areas,1.7% and 1.8% in premolar and anterior regions, respectively  (P=0.8). Implant failure rate was 1.3% in overdentures, 5.9% in cement-retained, and 3.2% in screw-retained prosthesis (P<0.001). This amount for implants with a diameter less than 3.75 mm was 2.6% and for those with a diameter more than 4.5 mm was 3.7% (P<0.001). Implants with a diameter less than 3.75 mm had a 2.6% failure rate, whereas those with a diameter greater than 4.5 mm had a 3.7% failure rate (P<0.001). The implants failure rate was 1.6% for Dio brand and 2.5% for Dentis (P=0.5).
Conclusion: The overall implant failure rate in this study was 3.4%, of which 1.5% occurred before and 1.9% occurred after prosthetic loading. The frequency of implant failure after loading was significantly associated with the implant diameter and prosthesis type. This was not related to the patient's gender, implant site, or the implant brand.