Short implants (6 mm) vs. vertical bone augmentation and standard-length implants (≥9 mm) in atrophic posterior mandibles: a 5-year retrospective study

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

A prospective, multi‐center study assessing early loading with short implants in posterior regions. A 3‐year post‐loading follow‐up study

Han

Tang

Zhang

et al. 2017

“…Felice and colleagues concluded in their 5‐year findings that short implants experienced statistically significantly less bone loss than longer implants. Other 5‐year studies with 6‐mm implants, in maxilla and mandible, reported bone loss varying from 0.18 to 0.7 mm . In the present study and in the study of Pieri and colleagues bone level implants were used, whereas in the other 6‐mm studies tissue level implants were applied.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

“…The high implant survival in the present study is the best comparable with results of the retrospective study of Pieri and colleagues that solely reported on implant treatment in the posterior mandible. The implant‐survival rate in that 5‐years study was 97.8%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single crown restorations supported by 6‐mm implants in the resorbed posterior mandible: A five‐year prospective case series

Guljé

Raghoebar

Vissink

et al. 2019

Purpose To assess clinical performance of single restorations supported by 6‐mm long implants in the posterior mandible after 5 years in function. Materials and Methods Twenty‐one consecutive patients with the absence of premolars or molars in the posterior mandible and an estimated bone volume of at least 6 mm in width and an estimated height of 8 mm between the top of the ridge and alveolar nerve were included. Each patient received one or more 6‐mm implants. Custom‐made titanium abutments with cemented zirconia‐based porcelain crowns were placed after a 3‐month osseointegration period. Data of clinical examinations and radiographs were assessed at placement of the restoration and 12 and 60 months thereafter. The patients answered a questionnaire to score the satisfaction before treatment and after 12 and 60 months with the restoration in function. Results Implant survival was 100%. Five‐years' mean marginal bone loss was 0.14 mm (SD: 0.4). Indices scores for plaque, calculus, gingiva, and bleeding were low as well as mean pocket‐probing depth. Patients' satisfaction was high. Conclusion Five‐year follow‐up data of this limited case series study revealed that 6‐mm dental implants inserted in the resorbed posterior mandible provide a solid basis for single tooth restoration.

“…Cortico‐cancellous block grafts and alveolar distraction osteogenesis are alternative augmentation procedures with high implant survival, but also require extensive surgical intervention . When compared with short implants, the latter are preferred as they exhibit less complications and marginal bone loss compared to longer implants in augmented bone . On the other hand, short implants demonstrated more marginal bone loss and implant failures when the crown/implant ratio increased …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective study on ultra‐wide diameter dental implants for immediate molar replacement

Hattingh

Hommez

Bruyn

et al. 2018

Background Although wide diameter implants are well documented, little is known about ultra‐wide diameter implants (>6 mm). This study evaluates the clinical outcome of ultra‐wide diameter implants, placed in molar extraction sockets. Materials and Methods Ultra‐wide diameter implants (7‐9 mm) were placed immediately after molar extraction in a 1‐stage protocol, without raising a flap or using any bone grafts. After 4 months, the implant was loaded with a single screw‐retained crown. Bone loss was evaluated using peri‐apical radiographs. Plaque and bleeding were recorded. Crown and papilla dimensions were measured and compared with the contra‐lateral tooth. Results Fifty‐one patients (36 male and 15 female), mean ages 61 years old, were treated with 26 implants in the maxilla and 25 implants in the mandible. The majority had a thick (#19) or medium (#31) biotype. After a mean‐follow‐up period of 23 months, the mean bone level was located 1.16 mm apical of the implant‐abutment junction (SD 0.42, range 0.00‐2.45) while the actual bone remodeling associated with socket healing resulted in a mean coronal movement of the bone level of 0.15 mm. The mean insertion torque was 116 Ncm (SD 53, range 10‐250). There were no differences in papilla height (P = .55), crown length (P = .32), zenith (P = .84), and bucco‐palatal dimensions (P = .38). There was a significant difference in the mesio‐distal dimension (P = .01). Mean probing depth was 2.59 mm at the implant and 2.23 mm at the contra‐lateral tooth (P = .001). There was significantly more plaque at the tooth compared to the implant (P = .01), but there was no significant difference in terms of bleeding on probing (P = .08). Patient satisfaction was high with 72.5% of the patients experiencing no problems at all. Conclusions Ultra‐wide diameter implants have a predictable outcome, demonstrating very little bone loss. Papilla and crown dimensions were comparable to the contra‐lateral natural tooth.