Short dental implants (6 mm) versus long dental implants (11–15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 3‐year results from a multicentre, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Abstract

Within the limitations of this study, implants with a length of 6 mm as well as longer implants in combination with a lateral sinus lift may be considered as a treatment option provided a residual ridge height of 5-7 mm in the atrophied posterior maxilla is present.

Do short implants have similar survival rates compared to standard implants in posterior single crown?: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…39 Table 2 shows the characteristics of the four studies included in this systematic review, of which three were RCTs and one was a CCT. 70,71 The study by Rossi et al 40 evaluated implants in both arches as well as the study of Mendoza-Azpur et al, 39 but the latter did not specify the exact number of implants in each arch and in each group. Two studies evaluated implants only in the maxilla.…”

“…The study by Guljé et al70 with a one-year follow-up obtained the study by Pohl et al71 reported the presence of prosthetic failures; there were eight loosenings of abutments screw and two decementations of crowns in the short implants, and two loosenings of abutments and one decementation of crown in standard implants.The study by Pohl et al71 reported a buccal fistula and pronounced hematoma in the group of standard implants with bone graft.4 | DISCUSSIONThe main objective of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate of short implants relative to standard implants in posterior single crowns. The control implant was lost during the first year.…”

“…Our review presents a limitation regarding this evaluation because only two studies40,71 reported information about crown-to-implant ratio. Our review presents a limitation regarding this evaluation because only two studies40,71 reported information about crown-to-implant ratio.…”

Sinus augmentation using a mini‐pig model: Effect of ceramic and allogeneic bone biomaterials

“…Although systematic reviews corroborate favourable clinical outcomes following bone augmentation procedures for dental implant fixation in the posterior maxilla controversy still involves the most effective or preferred protocol(s) (Del Fabbro, Wallace, & Testori, ; Esposito, Felice, & Worthington, ; Lundgren et al., ; Pjetursson, Tan, Zwahlen, & Lang, ; Tan, Lang, Zwahlen, & Pjetursson, ). This conundrum primarily revolves around the choice of autogenous bone grafts, synthetic or cadaver‐sourced bone biomaterials, biologic amplifiers or any combination thereof but also surgical approach and implant technology; short implants advocated to at all evade augmentation procedures (Al‐Nawas & Schiegnitz, ; Esposito et al., ; Pohl et al., ). Moreover, a recent review suggests that: “The mere elevation of the maxillary sinus membrane and the simultaneous placement of implants results in bone formation and osseointegration.…”

Electromyographic assessment of masticatory muscles activity in patients with severe alveolar bone atrophy with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

“…Studies over the past few years have proved the possibility of short implant placement and have confirmed its clinical effectiveness in comparison with the conventional treatment with sinus augmentation [5][6][7]. It was stated that the use of short implants might avoid adjunct procedures used for implant insertion, thereby reducing operative time, complexity and postoperative discomfort [8].…”