Short Dental Implants

Annibali, Susanna; Cristalli, Maria Paola; Dell’Aquila, D.; Bignozzi, Isabella; Monaca, Gerardo La; Pilloni, Andrea

doi:10.1177/0022034511425675

Cited by 200 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, as reported by literature on implant therapy, bone quality seems to affect the implants survival rates [33] and long-term prognosis [34]. The implant failures observed in the present study are more frequent in the upper back jaw, where there is a higher chance of the bone being type III-IV [35].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Short Implants in Partially Edentulous Maxillae and Mandibles: A 10 to 20 Years Retrospective Evaluation

Lops

Bressan

Pisoni

et al. 2012

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. Evaluation of the short implant (8 mm in height) long-term prognosis and of the implant site influence on the prognosis. Methods. A longitudinal study was carried out on 121 patients (57 males and 64 females) consecutively treated with 257 implants. 108 implants were short. Results. Four (3.6%) short implants supporting fixed partial prostheses failed. Similarly, three standard implants supporting fixed partial prostheses and one supporting single-crown prosthesis failed. Mean marginal bone loss (MBL) and probing depth (PD) of short and standard implants were statistically comparable (P > .05). The 20-year cumulative survival rates of short and standard implants were 92.3 and 95.9%, respectively. The cumulative success rates were 78.3 and 81.4%. The survival rates of short implants in posterior and anterior regions were comparable: 95 and 96.4%, respectively. The difference between survival rates was not significant (P > .05). Conclusions. The high reliability of short implants in supporting fixed prostheses was confirmed. Short and standard implants long-term prognoses were not significantly different. The prognosis of short implants in posterior regions was comparable to that of in anterior regions. Nevertheless, a larger sample is required to confirm this trend.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Short Implants in Partially Edentulous Maxillae and Mandibles: A 10 to 20 Years Retrospective Evaluation

Lops

Bressan

Pisoni

et al. 2012

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[25262728] According to our results, C/I ratio and abutment angulation resulted not associated with mechanical failure, therefore, not representing a risk factor for long-term survival of dental implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Dental implants placed in patients with mechanical risk factors: A long-term follow-up retrospective study

Papi¹,

Carlo²,

Mencio³

et al. 2017

J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:Risk factors in oral implantology are defined as local or systemic conditions that increase failure rates. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the long-term survival rate of dental implants placed in patients presenting mechanical risk factors.Materials and Methods:This retrospective study was conducted only with patients presenting at least one of the following risk factors were included: Bruxism; crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio <0.8; abutment angulation. The overall implant survival was estimated using Kaplan–Meier analyses. Risk factors for implant failure were identified using the Cox proportional hazard regression models.Results:Eighty-nine eligible patients were enrolled in this study: They were both male (n = 56, 62.92%) and female (n = 33, 37.08%), with an average age of 53.24 (23–76 years), with 227 dental implants inserted. The mean follow-up was 13.6 years (range: 10–16 years). The overall 10-year Kaplan–Meier survival estimate with associated 95% confidence intervals was 86.34% (82.8, 87.1). Bruxism was the only variable that showed a statistically significant association with implant failure (P < 0.05) and a hazard ratio of 2.9, while both Crown to-implant and abutment angulations reported lower values of failure (P > 0.05).Conclusions:Within the limitations of this study, can be concluded that data suggested an evident relationship between bruxism and dental implant failure but further studies, with a larger sample and a different design are required to assess this relationship.

show abstract

“…No statistically significant difference between the failure rates of short and standard length implants or between implants placed in single-stage and 2-stage procedures were obtained. In a review by Annibali et al [22], a 99.1% cumulative survival rate was reported. Similarly, Pommer found a difference between rough- and machine-surfaced implants of 99.5%/97.2% [23], respectively.…”

Section: Treatment Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short dental implants in reduced alveolar bone height: A review of the literature

Tutak¹,

Smektała

Schneider

et al. 2013

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of short dental implants in distally reduced alveolar bone height.Material/MethodsMedLine (PubMed and Ovid), ISI Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane databases were used for analysis. Searching was conducted using the search equation: ‘Dental Implants’ [Majr] AND (Short[TIAB] OR Shorter[TIAB]) AND (Implant[TIAB] OR Implants[TIAB]). Abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers. The articles included in the analysis were published in the English language and reported data on the use of implants with lengths below 10 mm in the posterior region with reduced alveolar bone height making the placement of longer implants impossible without additional surgical interventions. Articles concerning data on orthodontic implants and post-resection surgery reconstruction were excluded from analysis. Any disagreements between the 2 reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer. No time frame was used.ResultsOf the 791 articles initially found, automatic rejection of duplicates in the Endnotes X5 software resulted in 538 articles. After the selection of studies from databases, a bibliography of 32 eligible articles was searched for other publications. Through this method, 2 more studies were added.ConclusionsThe analysis of the results of different studies on the use of short dental implants showed that this treatment could be effective and comparable to the use of standard-length implants. This study revealed that rough-surfaced implants with lengths between 6–10 mm placed in the posterior mandible are the preferred solution. However, more detailed data will require additional prospective studies.

show abstract

Short Dental Implants

Cited by 200 publications

References 16 publications

Short Implants in Partially Edentulous Maxillae and Mandibles: A 10 to 20 Years Retrospective Evaluation

Short Implants in Partially Edentulous Maxillae and Mandibles: A 10 to 20 Years Retrospective Evaluation

Dental implants placed in patients with mechanical risk factors: A long-term follow-up retrospective study

Short dental implants in reduced alveolar bone height: A review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About