Meta-analysis on the survival of short implants

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the success and failure rates of short implants (10 mm or less) for oral rehabilitations in cases of limited bone height. Study Design: Review of the articles published on the topic between the years 2000 and 2010, and development of a descriptive meta-analysis of the results. Results: The majority of the studies obtain a cumulative success rate (CSR) similar to that of longer implants (92.5% -98.42% for machined and rough-surface implants, respectively). The studies that record lower cumulative success rates (CSR) are later studies that analyze implants with a machined surface. Almost none of the studies compared the success/failure rates with the bone quality or location of the implant (maxilla or mandible). Thus, the results obtained are from a mixture of these parameters. Conclusions: In view of the results analyzed, rehabilitations with short implants are a reliable treatment; however, the lack of consistency in the study designs as well as the presence of bias in all of the studies reviewed make it difficult to analyze the data.

Short implants to support mandibular complete dentures - photoelastic analysis

“…15 However, this retrospective study compare implants with 8 and 10 mm of length, meanwhile some authors consider implants with 10 mm as a short implant. 23 Stress levels in the bone tissue surrounding splinted implants showed markedly lower values when compared with single implants. 33 Previous clinical study showed 100% of survival to implants and prosthesis supported by short implants (< 10 mm), even after 10 years of follow up.…”

“…Despite this, was reported that the most failures with short implants happens before the loading, exempting biomechanical factors of blame for this failure. 21,22,23 Many studies report the use short implants (≤ 10 mm) with a considerable success, however the literature regarding survival rate of ≤ 7 mm is sparse. 13 Despite this, a recent systematic review affirms that implants shorter than 7 mm can be placed successfully, in mandibular or maxilla.…”

“…15 Systematic reviews also reported that short implants can be placed successfully in the partially edentulous patient. 13,20,21,22,23 Implants shorter than 10 mm are sufficient to support occlusal forces without undesirable crestal bone resorption, even when restored with an unsplinted single-crown. 8 Currently the increasing survival rates of the short implants are associated with improvement in the surface of implants.…”

“…The cumulative success of rough-surface implants is greater than that of machined-surface implants, especially for short implants. 21,23,24 Moreover, the increase in the diameter of implants could help minimize complications 12,25,26 since a large implant diameter might result in more homogeneous stress distribution and less stress concentration on the implants. 27 Most studies with short implants involve partially edentulous patients or those who require a single tooth replacement.…”

Fixed Dental Prosthesis on 4.2 mm Length Rough Implants: A Case Series Report after an Average Loading Time of 33 Months

“…This is in accordance with the results of our study and the 2.54 average crown-to-implant ratio. It may seem odd to find in the category of ≤10 mm short implants [29] much shorter implants that are twice as short (<5 mm). To distinguish between these two types of implants, we propose to call these less than 5 mm-long implants extrashort implants (ESI).…”