A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient

Abstract

Conflict of interest and source of fundingThe authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in this study and no external funding was obtained. AbstractAim: This study evaluated, through a systematic review of the literature, the estimated implant survival rate of short (<10 mm) dental implants installed in partially edentulous patients. Materials & methods:A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases of MEDLINE (1980-October 2009) and EMBASE (1980-October 2009 to identify eligible studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the articles using specific study-design related quality assessment forms.Results: Twenty-nine methodologically acceptable studies were selected. A total of 2611 short implants (lengths 5-9.5 mm) was analysed. Increase of implant length was associated with an increase in implant survival (from 93.1% to 98.6%). Heterogeneity between studies was explored by subgroup analyses. The cumulative estimated failure rate of studies performed in the maxilla was 0.010 implants per year, comparing to 0.003 of the studies in the mandible. For studies which also included smokers the failure rate was 0.008 comparing to 0.004 of studies which excluded smokers. Surface topography and augmentation procedure were no source of heterogeneity.

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effects of implant diameter and photofunctionalization on peri-implant stress

“…An implant length/diameter of 10 mm/3.75 mm was reported to be a potential threshold in determining the risk of unfavorable biomechanical behavior (20)(21)(22). From a biomechanical perspective, under vertical loading, minimum and maximum principal stress values around the implant neck were acceptable at every diameter for implants with a BIC ratio of 98.2%.…”

A prospective, multi‐center study assessing early loading with short implants in posterior regions. A 3‐year post‐loading follow‐up study

“…2,25,26 However, most surgeons are inclined to use short implants with wider bodies to compensate for the lack of alveolar bone height. 10,27,28 It remains uncertain whether this "compensation" is actually needed or not.…”

Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review

“…This shift was possible by the development of more favorable implant surfaces and supported by reporting successful studies on short implants. Implants of <10 mm in length have been considered as short implants (Pommer et al., 2011; Telleman et al., 2011). However, short implants have also been defined as equal or <8 mm in length (Renouard, & Nisand, 2006).…”