» Articles » PMID: 28261519

Treatment Concepts for the Posterior Maxilla and Mandible: Short Implants Versus Long Implants in Augmented Bone

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2017 Mar 7
PMID 28261519
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The aim of this narrative review is to describe treatment options for the posterior regions of the mandible and the maxilla, comparing short implants vs. longer implants in an augmented bone. The dental literature was screened for treatment options enabling the placement of dental implants in posterior sites with a reduced vertical bone height in the maxilla and the mandible. Short dental implants have been increasingly used recently, providing a number of advantages including reduced patient morbidity, shorter treatment time, and lower costs. In the posterior maxilla, sinus elevation procedures were for long considered to be the gold standard using various bone substitute materials and rendering high implant survival rates. More recently, implants were even placed without any further use of bone substitute materials, but the long-term outcomes have yet to be documented. Vertical bone augmentation procedures in the mandible require a relatively high level of surgical skill and allow the placement of standard-length dental implants by the use of autogenous bone blocks. Both treatment options, short dental implants, and standard-length implants in combination with vertical bone augmentation procedures, appear to result in predictable outcomes in terms of implant survival rates. According to recent clinical studies comparing the therapeutic options of short implants vs. long implants in augmented bone, the use of short dental implants leads to a number of advantages for the patients and the clinician.

Citing Articles

Alveolar ridge preservation in posterior maxillary teeth for reduction in the potential need for sinus floor elevation procedures: A pilot study.

Lam L, Ivanovski S, Lee R Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024; 35(12):1568-1584.

PMID: 39165113 PMC: 11629457. DOI: 10.1111/clr.14344.


Comparative evaluation of hard and soft tissue parameters by using short implants and standard long implants with sinus lift for prosthetic rehabilitation of posterior maxilla.

Durrani F, Karthickraj S, Imran F, Ahlawat S, Kumari E, Vani S J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2024; 28(1):106-112.

PMID: 38988954 PMC: 11232800. DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_436_23.


An epidemiological qualitative/quantitative SWOT-AHP analysis in order to highlight the positive or critical aspects of dental implants: A pilot study.

Aliberti S, Funk R, De Stefano M, Hoffmann T, Capunzo M Clin Exp Dent Res. 2024; 10(2):e2836.

PMID: 38450945 PMC: 10918715. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.836.


[5.5 mm implant. A solution for severe atrophies without sacrificing predictability].

Anitua E Rev Cient Odontol (Lima). 2024; 10(4):e137.

PMID: 38390603 PMC: 10880715. DOI: 10.21142/2523-2754-1004-2022-137.


Analysis of ultra-short implants with different angulations: a retrospective case-control study with 2 to 9 years of follow-up.

Malchiodi L, Fiorino A, Merlino L, Cucchi A, Zotti F, Nocini P Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 28(1):79.

PMID: 38183469 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05460-x.


References
1.
Silva L, de Lima V, Faverani L, de Mendonca M, Okamoto R, Pellizzer E . Maxillary sinus lift surgery-with or without graft material? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45(12):1570-1576. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.09.023. View

2.
Thoma D, Zeltner M, Husler J, Hammerle C, Jung R . EAO Supplement Working Group 4 - EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26 Suppl 11:154-69. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12615. View

3.
Mertens C, Meyer-Baumer A, Kappel H, Hoffmann J, Steveling H . Use of 8-mm and 9-mm implants in atrophic alveolar ridges: 10-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27(6):1501-8. View

4.
McAllister B, Haghighat K . Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol. 2007; 78(3):377-96. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060048. View

5.
Isidor F . Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal overload or plaque accumulation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997; 8(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.1997.tb00001.x. View