Clinical study on survival rate of short implants placed in the posterior mandibular region: resonance frequency analysis

Queiroz, Thallita Pereira; Aguiar, Samuel C.; Margonar, Rogério; Faloni, Ana Paula de Souza; Gruber, Reinhard; Luvizuto, Eloá Rodrigues

doi:10.1111/clr.12394

Cited by 38 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…36 The previous study suggested that levels of ISQ higher than 60 result in satisfactory implant stability. 16 In the present study, short and conventional implants presented mean ISQ values above 60 in all the periods evaluated. At the time of implant installation (T0), higher ISQ values were obtained for both groups.…”

Section: Graphsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…This finding could be attributed to the low bone quality in the posterior area of the mandibular bone in consequence of the deficient irrigation, which favored the conventional implants due to increased implant length. 16 On the contrary, at T2, short implants showed statistical increases in ISQ values, probably because of the locking being limited to the upper mandibular cortical bone, where the bone is denser, 16 decreasing the intensity of the stresses around the bone. 29 This fact suggests that those implants that produce more tension around the bone led to a higher bone remodeling.…”

Section: Graphmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17 The measurements were performed in the buccolingual, lingual-buccal, mesiodistal, and distomesial regions, and the mean value was used. 18 The ISQ values range between 1 and 100, 16 where…”

Section: Implant Stability Quotientmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Short and Regular Implants after Prosthesis Placement in the Mandible: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Molon

Lages

Rivera³

et al. 2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this nonrandomized controlled preliminary clinical trial was to compare treatment using short and conventional implants in the posterior region of the mandible after prosthesis installation by means of clinical, resonance frequency, and radiographic analyses. Materials and methods:A total of 10 patients with 40 dental implants already installed were included in this study. Four implants were installed for each subject, in which the length of the implants (short and conventional) was distributed according to the reminiscent alveolar bone in the left and right side of the mandible. All implants received splinted prosthesis after the osseointegration period. Analyses were performed immediately after prosthesis installation (T1), and 3 (T2) and 6 months (T3) after prosthesis placement. Results:The 6-month survival and success rates were 100% for the short and conventional implants. Probing depths (PDs) after 6 months did not show statistical differences between short and conventional implants. All groups showed mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) demonstrating great implant stability, and no differences were found between groups at T3. Radiographic measurements showed an increased bone loss for conventional implants compared with short implants in all the three periods evaluated. Conclusion:Our findings suggest that treatment of resorbed posterior regions in the mandible with shorter dental implants is as reliable as treatment with conventional implants after 6 months of splinted prosthesis installation.Clinical significance: Short implants might be considered a predictable treatment alternative to bone augmentation or extensive surgical techniques in regions of restricted vertical bone height in the posterior region of the mandible.

show abstract

Section: Graphsupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Graphmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Short and Regular Implants after Prosthesis Placement in the Mandible: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Molon

Lages

Rivera³

et al. 2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Areas with severe bone resorption and limitations in bone height and thickness represent a challenge for oral rehabilitation with dental implants 11,14 , especially in the posterior regions of the mandible and maxilla where the mandibular canal and maxillary sinus floor are located 6,15 . Short implants have emerged as a less traumatic and invasive alternative than reconstructive procedures with bone grafts 6,14,15 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One alternative that has been proposed is the use of short implants that would have the advantage of eliminating additional surgical procedures to increase bone availability following installation of the implants 6,11 . A literature review reports that previous studies have shown that the use of short implants had a high failure rate compared to conventional implants 12 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study

Ibelli

Assaf

Santos

et al. 2017

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study ResumoObjetivo: Avaliar e correlacionar os valores de densidade óssea radiográfica, altura óssea peri-implantar e de frequência de ressonância nos implantes curtos e convencionais instalados na região posterior da mandíbula após a instalação da prótese provisória. Material e método: Esse estudo piloto clínico prospectivo contou com a participação de 11 pacientes que foram divididos previamente em dois grupos: implantes curtos (n=18) (5,0 x 5,5 mm e 5,0 x 7,0 mm) e implantes convencionais (n=23) (4,0 x 10 mm e 4,0 x 11,5 mm). Foram executadas análise da frequência de ressonância, altura óssea e densidade óssea peri-implantar. Os implantes foram avaliados nos períodos T0 (imediatamente após a instalação do provisório), T1 (após 90 dias) e T2 (após 180 dias). Resultado: Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos com relação a densidade óssea radiográfica (152,50 ± 15,39 vs. 157,60 ± 28,46, para implantes convencionais e curtos respectivamente no período T2), estabilidade dos implantes (Implantes convencionais: 66,76 ± 10,39 no período T0 e 61,85 ± 8,38 no período T2 vs. Implantes curtos: 57,50 ± 12,17 no período T0 e 61,53 ± 7,39 no período T2) e quanto a perda óssea periimplantar (0,03 mm vs. -0,17 mm, em implantes convencionais e curtos no período T2, respectivamente). Adicionalmente a isso, não foram detectados correlação significativa entre densidade radiográfica com altura óssea peri-implantar e nem com a frequência de ressonância. Conclusão: Verificou-se que os implantes curtos apresentaram um comportamento semelhante aos implantes de comprimento convencionais com relação à frequência de ressonância, a densidade radiográfica peri-implantar e a manutenção dos níveis ósseos periimplantares.Descritores: Reabsorção óssea; densidade óssea; próteses e implantes. AbstractObjective: To evaluate and correlate the values of radiographic bone density, peri-implant bone height and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) of short or conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible after installing a prosthesis. Material and method: Eleven patients were selected for this prospective parallel pilot study. The prostheses were supported by two types of implants: short implants (n = 18) (5.0 x 5.5 mm and 5.0 x 7.0 mm) and conventional implants (n = 23) (4.0 x10 mm and 4.0 x 11.5 mm). The implants were evaluated by RFA, by measuring the bone height, and peri-implant bone density. The implants were evaluated at the periods T0 (immediately after installation of the prosthesis), T1 (after 90 days), and T2 (after 180 days). Result: There were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect to radiographic bone density (152.50 ± 15.39 vs. 157.60 ± 28.46, for conventional and short implants, respectively at T2), stability of the implants (Conventional implants: 66.76 ± 10.39 at T0, and 61.85 ± 8.38 at T2 vs. Short implants: 57.50 ± 12.17 at T0, and 61.53 ± ...

show abstract

Long-term effectiveness of UV functionalised short (≤ 6 mm) dental implants placed in the posterior segments of the atrophied maxilla: controlled case series

Ghambaryan,

Yessayan,

Hakobyan

2024

Odontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical study on survival rate of short implants placed in the posterior mandibular region: resonance frequency analysis

Cited by 38 publications

References 50 publications

Evaluation of Short and Regular Implants after Prosthesis Placement in the Mandible: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Evaluation of Short and Regular Implants after Prosthesis Placement in the Mandible: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study

Long-term effectiveness of UV functionalised short (≤ 6 mm) dental implants placed in the posterior segments of the atrophied maxilla: controlled case series

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About