Short (6 mm) and Regular Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla–7-Years Follow-up Study

Abstract

Short 6 mm dental implants are considered as an alternative to the maxillary sinus elevation and bone augmentation procedure where there is a reduced alveolar ridge height. The aim of this study was to compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants (6 mm) and regular length implants (11–13 mm) when placed in combination with bone grafting and loaded with a single non splinted crown, seven years after placing the implant. It was conducted as a controlled clinical study of 30 patients with partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla. The protocol included radiological and clinical evaluation of the C/I ratio (length of the superstructure divided by the length of the implant crestal part), marginal bone level (MBL), ultrasonography measurement of soft tissue surrounding implant (STT), patient-reported outcomes, and biological and technical complications. A total number of 28 implants (93%) remained integrated during follow-up period. MBL of 0.50 and 0.52 mm was observed for short implants and regular implants, respectively. MBL was checked for correlation with STT, and a negative correlation was found between MBL: STT. Our study has demonstrated a significantly lower implant survival rate for short implants compared to regular implants (87% compared to 100%). Despite the loss of several implants, good clinical results were achieved in the remaining implants in both groups. It is, therefore, worth considering short implants as an alternative to regular implants with a sinus lift surgery.

Clinical Outcome of Dental Implants after Maxillary Sinus Augmentation with and without Bone Grafting: A Retrospective Evaluation

“…In this respect, it should be noted that the length of the implant itself might not be a relevant factor in the biological prognosis of the treatment, as shorter dental implants as well as longer dental implants in conjunction with lateral sinus elevation procedures yielded similar marginal bone level changes [ 60 ]. This statement has been confirmed in recent controlled studies corroborating the fact that even 6 mm length implants placed in RABH of 5–7 mm showed comparable results in terms of marginal bone resorption compared to regular ≥ 11 mm length implants [ 61 , 62 ]. Following this concept, it is safe to assume that crestal sinus floor elevation should be contemplated to place shorter implants as a more conservative and less invasive approach in case of sinuses with a relatively flat floor anatomy together with a RABH ≥ 5 mm.…”

Preliminary Study with the Use of a Titanium Mesh as Space Maker and Implant Primary Stabilization for One-Stage Sinus Lift in Cases with Less Than 1.5 mm Residual Bone

“…The subantral residual alveolar bone plays a significant role with respect to the most convenient option of surgical procedure and the timing of implant placement. Short implants (defined as implants with an intrabony length of 8 mm or less) [ 18 , 19 ] have been suggested as a favorable option in order to minimize the morbidity and the risk of a more invasive procedure, such as the sinus lift. However, a minimum of 6 mm of residual alveolar bone is necessary for short implant placement.…”

The role of folded fibular flap in patients’ reconstruction of mandibular defects: a retrospective clinical study

“…The 12-month clinical trials have shown that there is no significant difference between the restoration supported by a single short implant and the long implant 29 , 30 . Although the three-year clinical trial of 2018 supported the view mentioned above 31 , the seven-year clinical study of 2021concluded that the survival rate of short implants was significantly lower than that of conventional implants (87% vs. 100%) 32 . At present, there is no relevant research on the restoration of multiple missing teeth on the fibula.…”