Evaluation of extrashort 4‐mm implants in mandibular edentulous patients with reduced bone height in comparison with standard implants: a 12‐month results

Calvo-Guirado, José Luís; Torres, José Alberto López; Dard, Michel; Javed, Fawad; Martínez, Carlos Pérez-Albacete; Val, José Eduardo Maté Sánchez de

doi:10.1111/clr.12704

Cited by 45 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these results do not represent greater vertical bone loss in the group with conventional implants, because that differences already occurred in T0. The absence of differences in bone loss around conventional implants and short implants has also been reported in other studies 6,14 . One clinical study with higher follow-up time than this study showed that short-implants have cumulation bone loss of 0.3 ± 0.5 mm at 48 months.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Although it has been stated that the short implants presented a higher failure rate than conventional implants 12 , some authors showed a survival rate for short implants ranging from 87.5%-100% 6,11,16,17 , and this rate was very similar to the survival rate for conventional implants fitted in native bone areas 14 or grafted areas 6,15 . This rate was confirmed by this study, although the follow-up time was short (6 months after installation of the prosthesis).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…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%

“…Short implants have emerged as a less traumatic and invasive alternative than reconstructive procedures with bone grafts 6,14,15 . However, despite the good predictability and high success rate of bone grafting procedures, patients are often reluctant to undergo additional surgeries because of the risks and morbidity associated with them 15 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study showed that success rates of short implants installed in the posterior region of the jaws were 65.2% after a follow up of 16 to 57 months, which is lower than expected for conventional implants in this same type of situation 13 . On the other hand, a clinical study that evaluated the success rates of short and conventional implants placed in fully edentulous mandibles and followed up for 12 months showed an equal success rates for these both types of implants 14 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%