Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 13, 2025
Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
Published on: July 15, 2009
A systematic review on removal of osseointegrated implants: un update
Giuseppe Tafuri1,2, Manlio Santilli1,2, Eugenio Manciocchi1,2
1Unit of Prosthodontics, Department of Innovative Technologies in Medicine and Dentistry, University "G. d'Annunzio" of Chieti- Pescara, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Background:
Today dental implants represent an effective therapy in case of partial or total edentulism, with an excellent success rate. Despite the results obtained, there may be biological or mechanical complications during the therapy, which lead to the loss of the implant. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current state of the art in the literature on techniques used for the removal of dental implants. Various aspects will be analyzed, such as the success of the technique, any complications, and the advantages and disadvantages of their use.
Methods:
Two reviewers conducted a literature analysis (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science) of the last 20 years (2003-2023). The main criterion analyzed was the success of the technique, while secondary outcomes such as complications and risks of the technique were also analyzed. 258 articles were identified in the various search databases. 42 eligible articles were subsequently identified after an article screening. Only 18 full texts were subsequently included in the review.
Results:
A total of 18 articles were selected and 1142 implants and 595 patients were included. The main techniques used were the Counter-Torque Ratchet Technique (CTRT), Piezoelectric bone surgery (PBS), trephine drills, carbide burs, Erbium, Chromium, Yttrium, Scandium, Gallium, Garnett (Er:Cr:YSGG) laser and carbon dioxide (CO2) laser. Combined uses of techniques have been identified such as: PBS and trephine burs or carbide burs, trephine burs with the use of a 3d-printed guide, CTRT and trephine burs. The technique with the highest success rate, less morbidity for the patient, and less removal of bone appears to be the CTRT.
Conclusions:
The use of conservative techniques, especially CTRT, in bone removal is useful to allow for immediate implant placement in the removal area. However, further studies with a high sample size are needed to be performed on all techniques, particularly new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that allow for the analysis of the success of alternative techniques such as Laser and Piezosurgery, which appear to be very promising.
