Success rate of short dental implants supporting single crowns and fixed bridges

Abstract

Based on this preliminary data, we conclude that rough surface design short dental implants (6 and 8 mm in length) have similar success rate when compared to 11-mm implants. Long-term data with larger number of implants and subjects are needed to confirm these results.

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

“…This bone level change corroborates well with previously published data for the OsseoSpeed implant, short implants 21,22,29,[31][32][33][34]37,[39][40][41] as well as for standard length implants. 15,16,[42][43][44][45] In this study, 4 early implant failures occurred and one implant rotated at 5 weeks post-surgery.…”

Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

“…This practice may be due to the suspectable C/I ratio, which might cause poor stress transmission. 32 Published research, including in vitro experiments and clinical studies, suggested that short implants splinted together by crowns deployed the occlusal force evenly, leading to a better result. 33,34 The primary consequence involved in the inappropriate design of restoration was MBL, which increased the risk of peri-implantitis or even the loss of short implants.…”

Comparison of clinical and radiographic parameters around short (6 to 8 mm in length) and long (11 mm in length) dental implants placed in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus: 3‐year follow‐up results

“…All implants (OsseoSpeed, DENTSPLY Implants, Waltham, MA, USA) were 4 mm in diameter. Depending upon their length, implants were classified as either short implants (6-8 mm in length) or long implants (11 mm in length) (Malmstrom et al 2015). Full-thickness mucoperiosteal flaps were raised under local anesthesia using a no.…”