Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Factors associated with failure of surface-modified implants up to four years of function
Jan Cosyn1, Edward Vandenbulcke, Hilde Browaeys
1Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, University of Ghent, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent, Belgium. jan.cosyn@ugent.be
Objectives:
The relative impact of innovative treatment concepts on the failure of surface-modified implants is not well understood. This retrospective study aimed to explore this using data obtained in a university postgraduate training center.
Material And Methods:
Patients treated with implants for a variety of indications over a 3-year period were included. All implants had been at least 1 year in function. Clinical records were evaluated for implant failure and in reference to implant length/diameter/location, time from tooth loss to implant placement, bone condition (native/grafted), surgical protocol (two-/one-stage), loading protocol (delayed/early/immediate), type of prosthesis (removable/fixed), surgeon's experience level (resident/trainee) and specialty (periodontist/oral surgeon). The impact of each covariate on failure was tested using the Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier survival functions were constructed and Mantel-Cox log-rank tests were used to compare survival functions. To correct for possible interaction, Cox proportional Hazards regression was adopted.
Results:
Forty-one of 1,180 (3.5%) implants were lost in 34/461 (7.4%) patients (245 ♀, 216 ♂; mean age 51, range 18-90). Factors showing significant impact on failure on the basis of univariate analyses were implant location (p = .015), surgical protocol (p = .002), loading protocol (p = .002), surgeon's experience level (p = .035) and specialty (p = .001). When controlling for other covariates, only the loading protocol had a significant influence (p = .049) with early loading more prone to failure (p = .014) when compared with delayed loading. Immediate loading and delayed loading showed comparable implant survival (p = .311).
Conclusions:
Implant therapy may be highly successful in a training center where inexperienced clinicians are strictly monitored and personally guided. Implant specific variables do not affect implant survival but early loading is a risk indicator for implant failure, whereas immediate loading is not.
