» Articles » PMID: 30448466

15-year Follow-up of Short Dental Implants Placed in the Partially Edentulous Patient: Mandible Vs Maxilla

Overview
Journal Ann Anat
Date 2018 Nov 19
PMID 30448466
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

There is paucity of the studies that assess the outcomes of short dental implants with a follow-up time higher than 10years. This study aims to evaluate the long-term (15years) survival and marginal bone loss around short dental implants and assess the influence of the anatomical location (mandible or maxilla) on these outcomes. A clinical retrospective study of short dental implants (≤8.5mm) was conducted in a single private dental clinic. The predictor variable was the anatomical location (mandible or maxilla). The primary outcome was the dental implant survival rate. The secondary outcomes were the marginal bone loss, the prosthesis failures and the influence of anatomical location, the antagonist type, and the clinical/anatomical crown-to-implant ratio (CIR) on the marginal bone loss and implant success rate. Descriptive analysis was performed for patients' demographic data, implant details, and prosthetic variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess the implant survival rate. Fifty patients with a mean age of 59±10years had a mean follow-up time of 15years. Seventy five implants were placed being 30 in the maxilla and 45 in the mandible. The implant position did not affect significantly the implant survival. The marginal bone loss has been significantly higher in the maxilla than the mandible. The implant survival rate was 93.3%. Short dental implants could be indicated to support fixed partial prosthesis in the mandible and the maxilla. Implant position may affect the marginal bone loss around the short dental implants.

Citing Articles

Prosthetic Applications of Short Dental Implants in Limited Bone Height Cases: A Review Article.

Ibrahem F, Fayad M, Emam A, Helal M, Abd-Elrahman I, Alqhtani M Cureus. 2024; 16(11):e73551.

PMID: 39677210 PMC: 11642726. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.73551.


Impact of Prosthetic Material and Restoration Type on Peri-Implant Bone Resorption: A Retrospective Analysis in a Romanian Sample.

Sabau D, Juncar R, Moca A, Bota T, Moca R, Juncar M J Clin Med. 2024; 13(6).

PMID: 38542018 PMC: 10971296. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13061794.


Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review.

Anitua E, Eguia A, Staudigl C, Alkhraisat M Int J Implant Dent. 2024; 10(1):4.

PMID: 38315326 PMC: 10844163. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-024-00521-6.


Extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) in atrophic and non-atrophic sites to support screw-retained full-arch restoration: a retrospective clinical study.

Anitua E, Eguia A, Alkhraisat M Int J Implant Dent. 2023; 9(1):29.

PMID: 37702800 PMC: 10499764. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-023-00499-7.


Two-Step Progressive Transcrestal Sinus Augmentation Using a 4.5 mm Unloaded Implant as a "Temporary Implant" in Highly Atrophic Ridge: Case Report.

Anitua E Eur J Dent. 2023; 17(2):560-566.

PMID: 36696916 PMC: 10329543. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755557.