Extra‐short implants in the prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla

Abstract

AimTo compare clinical outcomes of ‘extra‐short' and regular bone level implants in the posterior maxilla for 12 months after loading.Materials and MethodsTwenty‐three systemically healthy, non‐smoking patients received 30 extra‐short, 24 regular bone level implants. Acrylic stents were fabricated for each patient for correct implant positioning. Implant lengths were 4–6 mm in the test, 8/10 mm in the control group. Radiographic evaluation was performed at baseline, 6, and 12 months after loading. Crestal bone level (CBL), CBL change (CBLC), true crown length (TCL), implant/crown ratio (ICR) and residual bone height (RBH) below maxillary sinus floor were calculated digitally. Data were tested statistically.ResultsResidual bone height was significantly lower, and TCL and ICR were higher in the test than the control group (P < 0.0001). CBL measurements at baseline were 0.19 ± 0.18 mm and 0.31 ± 0.37 mm and at 12 months, 0.24 ± 0.24 mm and 0.41 ± 0.31 mm, respectively in the test and control groups. CBL values at 12 months were significantly lower in the test than the control group (P < 0.05). CBLCs were similar at all times (P > 0.05). No correlation was found between the CBLC and implant/prosthetic parameters.ConclusionExtra‐short and regular implants might provide similar clinical outcomes in prosthetic rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla, during 12 months follow‐up.

Bone loss and prosthetic complications with short and narrow diameter implants used to retain mandibular implant overdentures: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

“…As stated, short implants do not have a significant impact on marginal bone loss and the survival rate of implants. 7,32 Some studies also concluded that the survival rate of short implants is the same as that of regular implants placed through bone regeneration procedures, [33][34][35][36][37][38] which is in agreement with the results of this study that shows the acceptable outcomes of short implants throughout the three years follow-up, with an average amount of peri-implant bone resorption.…”

Are <7‐mm long implants in native bone as effective as longer implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…For five of them 35‐37,41,44 the results were reported in multiple publications, so that a total of 25 articles 8,10,35‐57 were considered in the analysis. Thirty‐six articles 15,58‐92 were excluded after full‐text evaluation. Table 1 reports the list of excluded studies with the main reasons for exclusion.…”

“…In one study, 4‐mm long implants were placed in non‐atrophic edentulous sites (11.5 mm below maxillary sinus/12.5 mm above the mandibular canal), and ST implants were placed in sites with similar RBH without any augmentation procedure 58 . In another study, implants of 4, 5, and 6 mm‐long were placed in sites of 4‐7 mm RBH, while ST implants were placed in sites with a mean RBH of 10.17 mm, without regeneration 61 . In spite of the interesting results provided, these protocols are not comparable to that addressed in our review, because the main clinical indications for SH implant (being an alternative to demanding and invasive augmentation procedures) seems not to be met by these studies.…”

Survival Rates of Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) Used as an Alternative to Longer (>6 mm) Implants for the Rehabilitation of Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review of RCTs

“…Studies were excluded based on the title and the abstract mainly due to the following reasons: type of study (retrospective, prospective study, case series), enrolment of fully edentulous patients, assessment of outcomes other than the primary outcome of our study, short implants defined as >6 mm, resonance frequency analyses, follow-up < 12 months after loading, studies including implants > 6 mm in the short implants group, and studies comparing clinical outcomes of short implants placed in anterior vs. posterior regions and not short vs. standard length implants. After the full texts were obtained, five studies were excluded for reasons associated with the study design; in particular two prospective studies [ 22 , 23 ], two retrospective studies [ 24 , 25 ], and one study allowing flapless implant placement in the test and not in the control group were excluded [ 26 ]. Additional reasons for excluding studies were the following: four studies included implants with length > 6 mm in the test group [ 24 , 27 , 28 , 29 ], one study reported a follow-up period < 1 year [ 30 ], two studies assessed outcomes other than the ones this review evaluates [ 31 , 32 ], in one non-randomized clinical trial the site of implant placement was unclear [ 33 ], and in one other study the implant surface characteristics were unknown [ 34 ].…”