To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Bone Quality and Quantity… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

Bone Quality and Quantity and Dental Implant Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Review article
Authors B. R. Chrcanovic
Tomas Albrektsson
A. Wennerberg
Published in International Journal of Prosthodontics
Volume 30
Issue 3
Pages 219-237
ISSN 0893-2174
Publication year 2017
Published at Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Pages 219-237
Language en
Keywords resonance frequency-analysis, branemark system(r) implants, randomized, clinical-trial, single-tooth implants, one-stage surgery, prospective, multicenter, follow-up, computerized-tomography, immediate, rehabilitation, tiunite(tm) implants, Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine
Subject categories Medical Biotechnology


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.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?