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

Abstract

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.

Dental caries prevention strategies among children and adolescents with immigrant - or low socioeconomic backgrounds- do they work? A systematic review

“…Only six studies explicitly reported that they included enamel caries in the caries examination. Table 5 , based on the USPSTF evidence classification and modified by Tutak M et al [ 35 ], illustrates that the intervention target age groups differed; 19 studies belonged to Age group I and 18 studies to Age group II. Articles categorized separately as Level of evidence I (from properly designed randomized control trial) were confined both to Age group I ( n = 8) and Age group II ( n = 6).…”

Two-stage closed sinus lift: a new surgical technique for maxillary sinus floor augmentation

“…However, the expected time of exploitation of those implants remains unknown (Esposito et al 2010 ). The studies reported that in the lateral segment of the maxilla the preferred length of the implant amounted to 6–10 mm (Tutak et al 2013 ). In case of severe atrophy an open sinus lift was necessary to embed implants of this size.…”

Recent advances in dental implants

“…Short implants are considered to be simpler and more effective by reducing the likelihood of such complications, patient discomfort, procedure costs, and procedure times in rehabilitation of the atrophic alveolar ridge [ 42 , 46 – 49 ]. The term of a short dental implant is subjective, and there is no clear criteria for the length of a short dental implant [ 43 , 46 , 47 ]. Some articles defined 10 mm or less as the criterion of a short dental implant [ 47 , 50 ], and some defined less than 10 mm as a short dental implant [ 46 , 51 ].…”

“…The term of a short dental implant is subjective, and there is no clear criteria for the length of a short dental implant [ 43 , 46 , 47 ]. Some articles defined 10 mm or less as the criterion of a short dental implant [ 47 , 50 ], and some defined less than 10 mm as a short dental implant [ 46 , 51 ]. Some defined the short implant as 8 mm or less [ 43 , 52 , 53 ].…”

“…Some defined the short implant as 8 mm or less [ 43 , 52 , 53 ]. Implant companies have recently offered short implants of less than 8 mm [ 47 ]. In this paper, a short dental implant was defined as less than 8 mm, which is similar to other papers [ 48 , 54 – 56 ].…”