A Retrospective Clinical Study of Single Short Implants (less Than 8 Mm) in Posterior Edentulous Areas

Overview

Journal J Adv Prosthodont

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2018 Jun 23

PMID 29930788

Citations 5

Authors

Sang-Yun Kim

Jeong-Kui Ku

Hyun-Suk Kim

Pil-Young Yun

Young-Kyun Kim

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of single short implants, less than 8 mm in length, placed in the posterior area.

Materials And Methods: A total of 128 patients (75 male and 53 female, mean age: 52.6±11.2 years) with 154 implants participated. Implant marginal bone loss, and survival and success rates were measured.

Results: The mean follow-up period was 51.35±24.97 months. A total of 128 implants, 8 mm in length, were placed in patients who had mean marginal bone loss of 0.75 mm. These implants had a survival rate of 95.3%. Twenty-six implants, 7 mm in length, were placed in areas with a mean marginal bone loss of 0.78 mm and had a survival rate of 96.2%. Both marginal bone loss and survival rate were not statistically different among the groups. In the maxilla, 34 implants showed a mean marginal bone loss of 0.77 mm and a survival rate of 97.1%. In the mandible, 120 implants showed a mean marginal bone loss of 0.75 mm and a survival rate of 95.0%. The average marginal bone loss around all implants was 0.76±0.27 mm at the last follow-up review after functional loading. The survival rate was 95.6% and success rate was 93.5%.

Conclusion: In our study, single short implants less than 8 mm in length in the posterior areas had favorable clinical outcomes.

Citing Articles

Outcomes of treatment with short dental implants compared with standard-length implants: a retrospective clinical study.

Berczy K, Gondocs G, Komlos G, Shkolnik T, Szabo G, Nemeth Z Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024; 46(1):6.

PMID: 38416263 PMC: 10902233. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-024-00419-8.

Clinical Outcome of Immediate Loading UV-Photofunctionalized Implants in Patients with Completely Edentulous Mandible, Placed with Guided Surgery.

Ghambaryan N, Jilavyan A, Burnazyan S, Khudaverdyan M, Gegham T, Hakobyan G J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023; 22(Suppl 1):64-75.

PMID: 37041958 PMC: 10082880. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-022-01798-z.

Biomechanical analysis of stress around the tilted implants with different cantilever lengths in all-on-4 concept.

Wang Q, Zhang Z, Bai S, Zhang S BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22(1):469.

PMID: 36335327 PMC: 9636816. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02520-8.

One-stage versus two-stage technique using two splinted extra-short implants: A multicentric split-mouth study with a one-year follow-up.

Menini M, Pesce P, Delucchi F, Ambrogio G, Canepa C, Carossa M Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022; 24(5):602-610.

PMID: 35700161 PMC: 9796435. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13113.

A micromorphological/microbiological pilot study assessing three methods for the maintenance of the implant patient.

Polizzi E, DOrto B, Tomasi S, Tete G Clin Exp Dent Res. 2020; 7(2):156-162.

PMID: 33211411 PMC: 8019768. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.345.

References

Gentile M, Chuang S, Dodson T . Survival estimates and risk factors for failure with 6 x 5.7-mm implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 20(6):930-7. View

Malmstrom H, Gupta B, Ghanem A, Cacciato R, Ren Y, Romanos G . Success rate of short dental implants supporting single crowns and fixed bridges. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 27(9):1093-8. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12693. View

Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson A . The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986; 1(1):11-25. View

Chan M, Narhi T, de Baat C, Kalk W . Treatment of the atrophic edentulous maxilla with implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont. 1998; 11(1):7-15. View

Glauser R, Lundgren A, Gottlow J, Sennerby L, Portmann M, Ruhstaller P . Immediate occlusal loading of Brånemark TiUnite implants placed predominantly in soft bone: 1-year results of a prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003; 5 Suppl 1:47-56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00015.x. View

Sun H, Huang C, Wu Y, Shi B . Failure rates of short (≤ 10 mm) dental implants and factors influencing their failure: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(4):816-25. View

Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D, Hurzeler M, Faehn O, Sanavi F . A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18(3):417-23. View

Yilmaz B, Seidt J, McGlumphy E, Clelland N . Comparison of strains for splinted and nonsplinted screw-retained prostheses on short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(6):1176-82. View

Mendonca J, Francischone C, Senna P, Matos de Oliveira A, Sotto-Maior B . A retrospective evaluation of the survival rates of splinted and non-splinted short dental implants in posterior partially edentulous jaws. J Periodontol. 2013; 85(6):787-94. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2013.130193. View

10.

Annibali S, Cristalli M, DellAquila D, Bignozzi I, LA Monaca G, Pilloni A . Short dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2011; 91(1):25-32. DOI: 10.1177/0022034511425675. View

11.

Fugazzotto P, Vlassis J, Butler B . ITI implant use in private practice: clinical results with 5,526 implants followed up to 72+ months in function. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19(3):408-12. View

12.

Rocci A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J . Immediate loading of Brånemark System TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible: a randomized open-ended clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003; 5 Suppl 1:57-63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00016.x. View

13.

Zarb G, Albrektsson T . Consensus report: towards optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80(6):641. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70048-4. View

14.

Misch C . Short dental implants: a literature review and rationale for use. Dent Today. 2005; 24(8):64-6, 68. View

15.

Calandriello R, Tomatis M . Immediate occlusal loading of single lower molars using Brånemark System® Wide Platform TiUnite™ implants: a 5-year follow-up report of a prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009; 13(4):311-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00214.x. View

16.

Kim Y, Ahn K, Yun P . A retrospective study on the prognosis of single implant placed at the sinus bone graft site. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013; 118(2):181-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2013.05.011. View

17.

Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, Kultje C . Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20(2):220-30. View

18.

Kim Y, Kim S, Yun P, Hwang J, Son M . Prognosis of single molar implants: a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010; 30(4):401-7. View

19.

Balshi T, Wolfinger G, Slauch R, Balshi S . A retrospective analysis of 800 Brånemark System implants following the All-on-Four™ protocol. J Prosthodont. 2013; 23(2):83-8. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12089. View

20.

Romeo E, Ghisolfi M, Rozza R, Chiapasco M, Lops D . Short (8-mm) dental implants in the rehabilitation of partial and complete edentulism: a 3- to 14-year longitudinal study. Int J Prosthodont. 2006; 19(6):586-92. View