» Articles » PMID: 33291369

Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2020 Dec 9
PMID 33291369
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This retrospective study evaluated the survival rate of short, sandblasted acid-etched surfaced implants with 6 and 8 mm lengths with at least 120 days of follow-up. Data concerning patient, implant and surgery characteristics were retrieved from clinical records. Sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA)-surfaced tissue-level 6 mm (TL6) or 8 mm (TL8) implants or bone-level tapered 8 mm (BLT8) implants were used. Absolute and relative frequency distributions were calculated for qualitative variables and mean values and standard deviations for quantitative variables. A Cox regression model was performed to verify whether type, length and/or width influence the implant survival. The cumulative implant survival rate was assessed by time-to-event analyses (Kaplan-Meier estimator). In all, 513 patients with a mean age of 58.00 ± 12.44 years received 1008 dental implants with a mean follow-up of 21.57 ± 10.77 months. Most implants (78.17%) presented a 4.1 mm diameter, and the most frequent indication was a partially edentulous arch (44.15%). The most frequent locations were the posterior mandible (53.97%) and the posterior maxilla (31.55%). No significant differences were found in survival rates between groups of type, length and width of implant with the cumulative rate being 97.7% ± 0.5%. Within the limitations of this study, the evaluated short implants are a predictable option with high survival rates during the follow-up without statistical differences between the appraised types, lengths and widths.

Citing Articles

Does crown-to-implant ratio affect marginal bone loss around a single short implant at the posterior of the mandible?.

Tabrizi R, Mehrabi P, Shafiei S, Azimi A, Moslemi H Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2024; 15(2):273-277.

PMID: 39234123 PMC: 11371288. DOI: 10.4103/njms.njms_27_23.


Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tang C, Du Q, Luo J, Peng L Int J Implant Dent. 2022; 8(1):45.

PMID: 36197540 PMC: 9535054. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-022-00443-1.

References
1.
Hermann J, Buser D, Schenk R, Schoolfield J, Cochran D . Biologic Width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(6):559-71. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120603.x. View

2.
Saletta J, Garcia J, Carames J, Schliephake H, da Silva Marques D . Quality assessment of systematic reviews on vertical bone regeneration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 48(3):364-372. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.07.014. View

3.
Rodrigo D, Cabello G, Herrero M, Gonzalez D, Herrero F, Aracil L . Retrospective multicenter study of 230 6-mm SLA-surfaced implants with 1- to 6-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28(5):1331-7. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3129. View

4.
Roccuzzo A, Marchese S, Worsaae N, Jensen S . The sandwich osteotomy technique to treat vertical alveolar bone defects prior to implant placement: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2020; 24(3):1073-1089. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03183-6. View

5.
Williams H, Burden-Teh E, Nunn A . What is a pragmatic clinical trial?. J Invest Dermatol. 2015; 135(6):1-3. DOI: 10.1038/jid.2015.134. View