Short Dental Implants (≤ 6 mm) to Rehabilitate Severe Mandibular Atrophy: A Systematic Review

Carosi, Paolo; Lorenzi, C; Laureti, Mariasole; Ferrigno, Nicola; Arcuri, C

doi:10.11607/jomi.8510

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of short implants has been presented as a viable clinical option in areas of low bone volume, and this option has hitherto been approached with caution. Although clinical analyses (Chen et al, 2020) have highlighted risk factors associated with the failure of short implants, recent reviews have also highlighted the success of splinted short implants (Carosi et al, 2021: ≤6 mm) and immediate loading of short implants (Kulkarni et al, 2021: 6 mm).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The biomechanical profile of an osseo‐integrated rectangular block implant: A pilot in vivo experimental study

Gazelakis

Judge

Palamara

2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective A novel implant design, the rectangular block implant (RBI), was investigated as a possible solution to the restoration of the posterior resorbed ridge. Aim To maximally load test the osseo‐integrated RBI in shear and tensile loads and relate these findings to known human masticatory loads as biomechanical proof of the study concept. Materials and methods Twelve RBIs were design‐manufactured and placed into posterior mandibular saddles in 3 mature greyhound dogs.—2 per left and right. After 12 weeks of healing, osseo‐integration was confirmed using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and wrench torque tests. Three bone blocks each with two RBIs were dissected and mounted in acrylic. Micro‐computerized tomography (μ‐CT) was performed to assess bone to implant contact (BIC), and load analysis was performed using a Universal Test System. Three force applications were conducted until failure: pull‐out (tensile), buccal push from the lingual (shear) and distal push from the mesial (shear). The osteotomy sites were examined using light magnification and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results Pull‐out, buccal and distal force failures occurred at differing levels. Post‐detachment sites showed complex patterns of bone failure, including trabecular and cortical fracture, as well as shearing at varying distances from the BIC. Interfacial shear strength was calculated at 14.4 MPa. Conclusion The osseo‐integrated RBIs were able to withstand simulations of the demanding axially, bucco‐lingually and mesio‐distally oriented biomechanical challenges of the posterior saddle, under conditions of reduced bone volume. These values exceeded equivalent force components of maximal masticatory loads in humans.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The biomechanical profile of an osseo‐integrated rectangular block implant: A pilot in vivo experimental study

Gazelakis

Judge

Palamara

2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study is reported following the STROBE guidelines. The records of all patients, who received dental implants at the University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna between 2001 and 2013, were screened on the following eligibility criteria: (1) interforaminal bone augmentation with onlay graft from the iliac crest, (2) placement of four interforaminal implants, (3) presence of pre/post-implantation and at least one follow-up panoramic X-ray, (4) severely resorbed mandible [26], (5) follow-up > 1 year, (6) no previous horizontal osteotomy procedure to broaden a narrow ridge (Class IV; [27]), and (7) no severe systemic diseases (i.e., ASA ≥ 3). Smoking patients (n = 6) were included in the present analysis; among those were four heavy (≥10 cigarettes/day) and two light (<10 cigarettes/day) smokers.…”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Back then, the implants were placed in edentulous patients with sufficient bone volume, while, today, challenging situations with severe mandibular atrophy are no longer excluded from implant therapy [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. The two main strategies to compensate for the lack of volume are bone augmentation [ 5 ] and short implants [ 6 ]. Bone augmentation with autografts is challenging because it combines harvesting with transplantation surgery before the simultaneous or delayed placement of dental implants [ 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone

Beck

Watzak

Lettner

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Iliac crest autografts can compensate for severe mandibular atrophy before implant placement. However, the implant success in the augmented bone is not entirely predictable. Here we performed a retrospective cohort study to determine the success and related parameters of implants placed in augmented bone and pristine bone for up to 11 years. Material and Methods: We analyzed 18 patients where 72 implants were placed six months after iliac crest transplantation and 19 patients where 76 implants were placed in pristine bone. The primary endpoint was implant loss. Secondary endpoints were the implant success, peri-implant bone loss, and the clinical parameters related to peri-implantitis. Moreover, we evaluated the oral-health-related quality of life (OHIP). Results: Within a mean follow-up of 5.8 ± 2.2 and 7.6 ± 2.8 years, six but no implants were lost when placed in augmented and pristine bone, respectively. Among those implants remaining in situ, 58% and 68% were rated as implant success (p = 0.09). A total of 11% and 16% of the implants placed in the augmented and the pristine bone were identified as peri-implantitis (p = 0.08). Bone loss was similar in both groups, with a mean of 2.95 ± 1.72 mm and 2.44 ± 0.76 mm. The mean OHIP scores were 16.36 ± 13.76 and 8.78 ± 7.21 in the augmentation and the control group, respectively (p = 0.35). Conclusions: Implants placed in iliac crest autografts have a higher risk for implant loss and lower implant success rates compared to those placed in the pristine bone.

show abstract

“…10 Other studies recommended short implants to be used with vertical bone augmentation similar to those used with standard implants. [11][12][13][14] However, in cases of atrophic mandibular partially edentulous ridges, short dental implants were found to have good therapeutic values in medium to long term clinical service, 15 as they improved the RPDS support, retention, and stability. [16][17][18] A controversy existed about the position of the implants under distal extension bases, whether to be placed mesially near the principal abutments or more distally towards the end of the saddles, and whether these bases should be used unilaterally, on separate bases, or connected by major connectors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Loading of Short and Standard-Length Dental Implants Retaining Mandibular Kennedy Class I Removable Partial Dentures

Alkhodary

Ettesh

2022

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short Dental Implants (≤ 6 mm) to Rehabilitate Severe Mandibular Atrophy: A Systematic Review

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

The biomechanical profile of an osseo‐integrated rectangular block implant: A pilot in vivo experimental study

The biomechanical profile of an osseo‐integrated rectangular block implant: A pilot in vivo experimental study

Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone

Early Loading of Short and Standard-Length Dental Implants Retaining Mandibular Kennedy Class I Removable Partial Dentures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About