Clinical management and microscopic characterisation of fatique-induced failure of a dental implant. Case report
© Capodiferro et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006
Received: 30 March 2006
Accepted: 22 June 2006
Published: 22 June 2006
Osseointegrated endosseous implants are widely used for the rehabilitation of completely and partially edentulous patients, being the final prosthodontic treatment more predictable and the failures extremely infrequent. A case of fracture of an endosseous dental implant, replacing the maxillary first molar, occurring in a middle-age woman, 5 years after placement is reported.
Materials and methods
The difficult management of this rare complication of implant dentistry together with the following rehabilitation is described. Additionally, the authors performed an accurate analysis of the removed fractured implant both by the stereomicroscope and by the confocal laser scanning microscope.
Results and discussion
The fractured impant showed the typical signs of a fatigue-induced fracture in the coronal portion of the implant together with numerous micro-fractures in the apical one. Three dimensional imaging performed by confocal laser scanning microscope led easily to a diagnosis of "fatigue fracture" of the implant. The biomechanical mechanism of implant fractures when overstress of the implant components due to bending overload is discussed.
When a fatigue-induced fracture of an dental implant occurs in presence of bending overload, the whole implant suffers a deformation that is confirmed by the alterations (micro-fractures) of the implant observable also in the osseointegrated portion that is easily appraisable by the use of stereomicroscope and confocal laser scanning microscope without preparation of the sample.
Osseointegrated endosseous implants are widely used for the rehabilitation of completely and partially edentulous patients, being the final prosthodontic treatment more predictable and the failures extremely infrequent [1–3]. Nevertheless, in the iter of realization of an implant retained prosthesis a series of possible complications have to be considered by the implant/prosthetic team: these are usually distinguished in surgical (disturbance, parae/anaesthesia, haematoma, mandibular fractures, haemorrhage, tooth necrosis) [4, 5] that are the most frequent ones, and mechanical (screw loosening, screw fractures, framework fractures, veneering resin or ceramic fractures, problems of mechanical retention) [6, 7]. Instead, implant fracture is very infrequent but, when it occurs, its management is very challenging because of its surgical, rehabilitative and emotional implications, and often also for insurance reasons .
The aim of this report is to describe the pathology and the management of a case of implant fracture occurring in the posterior maxilla of a middle age woman who was rehabilitated by implant-retained partial fixed prosthesis; an accurate microscopic evaluation by using stereo and confocal laser scanning microscopy of the fractured implant and the surrounding bone was performed demonstrating that it was a "fatigue fracture" of the implant due to increased stress and bending overload forces originates from inadequate implant diameter in relation to the site needing rehabilitation.
Considering the appearance on 3D reconstruction and the presence of the defects in all scanned plans, authors agreed in defining them as microfractures or craks of the apical portion of the implant though well-osseointegrated due to fatigue.
Excluding lack of osseointegration and perimplantitis, the main causes of dental implant failure can result from technical problems relating both to prosthesis and to implant components. The latter includes above all abutment screw fracture, which is a complication with an increasing rate of incidence, and implant fracture which remains extremely rare [9–12]. These were first described by Brånemark et al. in 1977, who reported on 13 fractured implants on a total of 1618 osseointegrated implants. Since then, only sporadic cases or short cases series are been reported; in fact, reviewing the international literature till to 2002 [1, 2, 5–8, 10, 14, 20], only 238 cases of implant fractures have been reported on a total of almost 24000 implants placed with a extremely variable percentage value of incidence, ranging from 0 to 7,2%. Nevertheless, almost all the authors agree in sustaining that the "bending overload", a term introduced by Rangert et al. in 1995 , is the main prosthesis-related cause leading to fatigue fracture of implants [14–17].
The mechanism of fracture has a multi-factorial aetiology; when number, position, dimension, design of implant and restoration are inadequate to the site needing rehabilitation, the situation of bending overload is present and an initial bone loss around the implant begins. If no correction of the prosthesis is introduced, the coronal screws become as soon as exposed and a crater-like appearance of the surrounding bone is observable. At this time, the coronal portion of the implant represents a lucus minoris resistenziae, being the implant internally filleted and consequently extremely thin, upon which overstress promotes the creation of numerous micro-fractures that can result, after a variable time range, in a complete fatigue fracture. Ideally, implants with internal abutment connection should be more suitable to this complication.
Besides, the findings of cracks on the root of the screw thread led us to sustain that bending overload creates a deformation of whole implant with consecutive micro-fractures, as previously described in experimental studies [18–21]. The observation of the cracks we performed at the confocal laser scanning microscope, is surely more easily executable unlike other techniques for metal fracture analysis, as no preparation of the sample is necessary; in fact, it leads rapidly to a diagnosis of fatigue fracture by the 3D reconstruction and the examination on several confocal plans of the cracks of the root of the screw thread; in this way defects or alterations of implant surface due to industrial workmanship or surface treatment to promote and increased osseointegration can be easily excluded. Additionally, this investigations could be useful for insurance reasons when failure of a dental implant occurs, while they are surely helpful in the planning of the new implant rehabilitation.
- Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R: Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a 10 year period. Scan J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977, 11 (16): 1-132.Google Scholar
- Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI: A 15 year study of osseointegraed implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981, 10: 387-416.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pylant T, Triplett RG, Key MC, Brunsvold MA: A retrospective evalutation of endosseus titanium implants in the partially edentulous patient. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992, 7: 195-202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zarb GA, Schmitt A: The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the toronto study. Part III: problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent. 1990, 64: 185-194.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Quirynen M, Neart I, van Steenberghe D, Scherpes E, Calberson L, Theuniers G: The cumulative failure rate of the Brånemark system in the overdenture, the fixed partial, and the fixed full prosthesis design: a prospective study on 1273 fixtures. J Head Neck Pathol. 1991, 10: 43-53.Google Scholar
- Naert I, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Darius P: A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixture prostheses. Part II: prosthetic aspects. J Prosthet Dent. 1992, 68: 949-956. 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90557-Q.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tolman DE, Laney WR: Tissue integrated prosthesis complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992, 7: 477-484.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI: A long term follow-up study of osseointegraed implants in the treatment of totally the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990, 4: 347-359.Google Scholar
- Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T: Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: a prospective 5 year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996, 11: 450-455.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Piattelli A, Scarano A, Piattelli M: Histologic observations on 230 retrieved dental implants: 8 years' experience (1989–1996). J Periodontol. 1998, 69: 178-184.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P: Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10 year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999, 14: 639-645.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ivanoff CJ, Grondahl K, Bergström C, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI: Influence of bicortical or monocortical anchorage on maxillary implant stability: a 15 year retrospective study of Brånemark system implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2000, 15: 103-110.Google Scholar
- Rangert B, Krogh PHJ, Langer B, Van Roekel N: Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995, 10 (3): 326-333.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Allen PF, McMillan AS, Smith DG: Complications and maintenance requirements of implant supported prostheses provided in a UK dental hospital. Br Dent J. 1997, 182: 298-302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jemt T, Lekholm U: Oral implant treatment in posterior partially edentulous jaws: a 5 year follow up report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993, 8: 635-640.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gunne J, Jemt T, Lindén B: Impant treatment in partially edentulous patients: a report on prosthesis after 3 years. Int J Prosthodont. 1994, 7: 143-148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lekholm U, van Steenberghe D, Hermann I, Bolender C, Folmer T, Gunne J: Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentuolous jaws: a prospective 5 year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994, 9: 627-635.Google Scholar
- Hye-Won C, Jin-Keun D, Tai-ho J, Sang-Chun O, Hae-Hyoung L, Jeong-Woo L: A study on the fracture strength of implant-supported restorations using milled ceramic abutments and all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 2002, 15: 9-13.Google Scholar
- Balshi TJ: Preventing and resolving complications with osseointegrated implants. Dent Clin North Am. 1989, 33: 821-868.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morgan MJ, James DF, Pilliar RM: Fracture of the fixture component of an osseointegrated implant. J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 1993, 8: 409-413.Google Scholar
- Yokoyama K, Ichikawa T, Murakami H, Miyamoto Y, Asaoka K: Fracture mechanism of retrieved titanium screw thread in dental implant. Biomaterials. 2002, 23: 2459-2465. 10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00380-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.