Analysis of fractured dental implant body from five different implant systems: a long-term retrospective study

  • H. Yu
    Fourth Division Department, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China
    Search for articles by this author
  • L. Qiu
    Correspondence to: Fourth Division Department, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 41, Dongsihuanzhong Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 5715966, China. Tel: +86 010 85715965. Fax: +86 010 85715966.
    Fourth Division Department, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China
    Search for articles by this author


      The aim of this study was to perform an analysis of the incidence of implant body fracture and to identify possible risk factors. A long-term follow-up retrospective evaluation of 3477 patients who received 8588 implants from five implant systems was performed. Overall, 2810 patients who received 7502 implants, with an average follow-up of 6.9 years, were included in the analysis. The overall body fracture rate was 0.49% (37/7502), among which 32.4% (12/37) were implants with a reduced diameter. The estimated cumulative fracture rate was 1.24%. Fractures were observed in two patients with three Brånemark implants, 13 patients with 15 Nobel Replace implants, eight patients with eight Camlog implants, eight patients with 11 Ankylos implants, and none of the patients with Thommen implants. Most fractures occurred in the molar region (29/37) and in single implant-supported restorations (30/37). The results showed significant differences between splinted and unsplinted restorations (P = 0.005) and between regular and narrow diameter implants (P = 0.009). Within the limitations of this retrospective analysis, a narrow implant diameter is a potential risk factor for implant body fracture in the posterior region. Furthermore, unsplinted restorations appear to be associated with a higher rate of implant fracture.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Altintas N.Y.
        • Taskesen F.
        • Bagis B.
        • Baltacioglu E.
        • Cezairli B.
        • Senel F.C.
        Immediate implant placement in fresh sockets versus implant placement in healed bone for full-arch fixed prostheses with conventional loading.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 226-231
        • Cassetta M.
        • Driver A.
        • Brandetti G.
        • Calasso S.
        Peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched Morse taper connection implants: a prospective 60-month follow-up study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 1577-1585
        • Pjetursson B.E.
        • Tan K.
        • Lang N.P.
        • Bragger U.
        • Egger M.
        • Zwahlen M.
        A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15: 625-642
        • Romeo E.
        • Storelli S.
        Systematic review of the survival rate and the biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean of 5 years follow-up.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 39-49
        • de la Rosa Castolo G.
        • Guevara Perez S.V.
        • Arnoux P.J.
        • Badih L.
        • Bonnet F.
        • Behr M.
        Mechanical strength and fracture point of a dental implant under certification conditions: a numerical approach by finite element analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 611-619
        • Berglundh T.
        • Persson L.
        • Klinge B.
        A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years.
        J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29 (discussion 232–233): 197-212
        • Gealh W.C.
        • Mazzo V.
        • Barbi F.
        • Camarini E.T.
        Osseointegrated implant fracture: causes and treatment.
        J Oral Implantol. 2011; 37: 499-503
        • Piattelli A.
        • Piattelli M.
        • Scarano A.
        • Montesani L.
        Light and scanning electron microscopic report of four fractured implants.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 561-564
        • Tenenbaum H.
        • Bogen O.
        • Severac F.
        • Elkaim R.
        • Davideau J.L.
        • Huck O.
        Long-term prospective cohort study on dental implants: clinical and microbiological parameters.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 86-94
        • Eckert S.E.
        • Meraw S.J.
        • Cal E.
        • Ow R.K.
        Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15: 662-667
        • Gargallo Albiol J.
        • Satorres-Nieto M.
        • Puyuelo Capablo J.L.
        • Sanchez Garces M.A.
        • Pi Urgell J.
        • Gay Escoda C.
        Endosseous dental implant fractures: an analysis of 21 cases.
        Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008; 13: E124-E128
        • 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
        • Tolman D.E.
        • Laney W.R.
        Tissue-integrated prosthesis complications.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992; 7: 477-484
        • Lee C.T.
        • Chen Y.W.
        • Starr J.R.
        • Chuang S.K.
        Survival analysis of wide dental implant: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1251-1264
        • Eckert S.E.
        • Wollan P.C.
        Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially edentulous jaws.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 79: 415-421
        • McDermott N.E.
        • Chuang S.K.
        • Woo V.V.
        • Dodson T.B.
        Complications of dental implants: identification, frequency, and associated risk factors.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18: 848-855
        • Sghaireen M.G.
        Fracture resistance and mode of failure of ceramic versus titanium implant abutments and single implant-supported restorations.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: 554-561
        • Santing H.J.
        • Meijer H.J.
        • Raghoebar G.M.
        • Ozcan M.
        Fracture strength and failure mode of maxillary implant-supported provisional single crowns: a comparison of composite resin crowns fabricated directly over PEEK abutments and solid titanium abutments.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14: 882-889
        • Honda J.
        • Komine F.
        • Kusaba K.
        • Kitani J.
        • Matsushima K.
        • Matsumura H.
        Fracture loads of screw-retained implant-supported zirconia prostheses after thermal and mechanical stress.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2020; 64: 313-318
        • Quek H.C.
        • Tan K.B.
        • Nicholls J.I.
        Load fatigue performance of four implant-abutment interface designs: effect of torque level and implant system.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23: 253-262
        • Steinebrunner L.
        • Wolfart S.
        • Ludwig K.
        • Kern M.
        Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 1276-1284
        • Shemtov-Yona K.
        • Rittel D.
        • Levin L.
        • Machtei E.E.
        Effect of dental implant diameter on fatigue performance. Part I: mechanical behavior.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 16: 172-177
        • Norton M.R.
        An in vitro evaluation of the strength of a 1-piece and 2-piece conical abutment joint in implant design.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11: 458-464
        • Wiskott H.W.
        • Jaquet R.
        • Scherrer S.S.
        • Belser U.C.
        Resistance of internal-connection implant connectors under rotational fatigue loading.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22: 249-257
        • Imakita C.
        • Shiota M.
        • Yamaguchi Y.
        • Kasugai S.
        • Wakabayashi N.
        Failure analysis of an abutment fracture on single implant restoration.
        Implant Dent. 2013; 22: 326-331
        • Quek C.E.
        • Tan K.B.
        • Nicholls J.I.
        Load fatigue performance of a single-tooth implant abutment system: effect of diameter.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21: 929-936
        • Rangert B.
        • Krogh P.H.
        • Langer B.
        • Van Roekel N.
        Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995; 10: 326-334
        • Adell R.
        • Lekholm U.
        • Rockler B.
        • Branemark P.I.
        A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw.
        Int J Oral Surg. 1981; 10: 387-416