Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Nov 24;13(2):61-68.
doi: 10.34172/japid.2021.017. eCollection 2021.

Occurrence and severity of spontaneous exposure of cover screw after dental implant placement

Ramin Negahdari  1 , Arezou Ghoreishizadeh  2 , Mohammad Ali Ghavimi  3 , Atefeh Soltanpour  3 , Sepideh Bohlouli  4
Affiliations

Occurrence and severity of spontaneous exposure of cover screw after dental implant placement

Ramin Negahdari et al. J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent. .

Abstract

Background: Perforation of the soft tissues overlying the dental implant, resulting in early and spontaneous exposure of cover screws between stages I and II of the two-staged implant placement procedure, is a common problem that can disrupt the primary repair and osseointegration process. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of spontaneous exposure of cover screws in dental implants and identify the related risk factors.

Methods: The present retrospective, descriptive-analytical study enrolled 40 patients with 182 dental implants in the second stage of the implant placement procedure. Data on patient-related and implant-related classified variables were collected, and all the samples were examined for cover screw exposure based on the classification by Tal. First, the overall prevalence of cover screw exposure was calculated. Then, statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 24 to investigate the effect of different variables on this exposure. The chi-squared test was used at the bivariate level, while the logistic regression was used at the multivariate level.

Results: Of 40 participants with 182 implants, 17 implants (9.3%) in 9 patients (22.5%) became exposed to the oral cavity. In terms of severity, Class I exposure was the most common with seven implants. Moreover, Class III was the least common with only one implant. Using the logistic regression analysis, we found significant relationships between the dental implant exposure and the variables of overlying mucosal thickness (OR=24.7, P≤0.001), the duration between tooth extraction and implant placement (OR=9.6, P=0.005), and implant location in the jaw (OR=3.8, P=0.033). Moreover, exposure was more common in the maxillary premolar area (22.5%) than in other locations. Also, there was a significant relationship between implant exposure and lateral augmentation (OR=0.20, P=0.044), indicating the higher risk of exposure in implants with lateral augmentation than those without augmentation.

Conclusion: Despite the limitations of this retrospective study, its results showed that three factors, including the overlying mucosal thickness of <2 mm, implant placement in fresh extraction sockets, and maxillary implants, especially at the location of maxillary premolars, were strong predictors of spontaneous implant exposure.

Keywords: Implant; Implant screw; maxillary premolars; osseointegration.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 6
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Bornstein MM, Cionca N, Mombelli A. Systemic conditions and treatments as risks for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2009;24(Suppl):12–27. - PubMed
    1. Cecchinato D, Olsson C, Lindhe J. Submerged or non-submerged healing of endosseous implants to be used in the rehabilitation of partially dentate patients: A multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clinic Periodontol. 2004;31(4):299–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00527.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Engquist B, Åstrand P, Anzén B, Dahlgren S, Engquist E, Feldmann H. et al. Simplified methods of implant treatment in the edentulous lower jaw: a 3-year follow-up report of a controlled prospective study of one-stage versus two-stage surgery and early loading. Clinic Implant Dent Related Res. 2005;7(2):95–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00052.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brånemark P-I, Breine U, Adell R, Hansson B, Lindström J, Ohlsson Å. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses: I Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;3(2):81–100. doi: 10.3109/02844316909036699. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Branemark P-I. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources