Analysis of Ultra-short Implants with Different Angulations: a Retrospective Case-control Study with 2 to 9 years of Follow-up

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Jan 6

PMID 38183469

Authors

Luciano Malchiodi

Antonino Fiorino

Lisa Merlino

Alessandro Cucchi

Francesca Zotti

Pier Francesco Nocini

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Does the angulation of ultrashort implants influence the stability of the peri-implant bone? The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-axial ultrashort implants after 2 to 9 years of follow-up in resorbed alveolar ridges.

Materials And Methods: All partially edentulous patients with ultrashort implants (< 6 mm) used in the posterior region of an atrophic mandible or maxilla, to support partial dentures in conjunction with standard implants, were included in this study. Peri-implant bone loss, success and survival rates, crestal bone levels, crown-to-implant ratio and implant angulation were measured for each implant. Implants were divided into two groups: straight implants with angulation < 17° (control group) and tilted implants with angulation > 17° (test group). Statistical analysis was used to find any significant differences between the two study groups and to investigate significant linear correlations among all the variables (p = 0.05).

Results: A total of 42 ultrashort implants with a mean of 4 years of follow-up were included: 20 ultrashort axially loaded implants and 22 tilted implants. Mean crestal bone levels from baseline loading to maximum follow-up did not reveal statistical differences in regard to PBL; mean success and survival rates were 100% in all groups.

Conclusions: PBL, success and survival rates of axial ultrashort implants and tilted ultrashort implants are comparable to those of conventional implants.

Clinical Relevance: This retrospective study revealed that ultrashort implants, even when placed with an angulation > 17°, can safely be used to support partial fixed prostheses. Further prospective clinical studies with larger samples and prospective design are needed to confirm these findings.

Citing Articles

Microbiota of Peri-Implant Healthy Tissues, Peri-Implant Mucositis, and Peri-Implantitis: A Comprehensive Review.

Di Spirito F, Giordano F, Di Palo M, DAmbrosio F, Scognamiglio B, Sangiovanni G Microorganisms. 2024; 12(6).

PMID: 38930519 PMC: 11205430. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms12061137.

References

Naert I, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Darius P . A six-year prosthodontic study of 509 consecutively inserted implants for the treatment of partial edentulism. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 67(2):236-45. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90461-i. View

Vieira R, Melo A, Budel L, Gama J, de Mattias Sartori I, Thome G . Benefits of rehabilitation with implants in masticatory function: is patient perception of change in accordance with the real improvement?. J Oral Implantol. 2014; 40(3):263-9. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00208. View

Fontijn-Tekamp F, Slagter A, van der Bilt A, van t Hof M, Witter D, Kalk W . Biting and chewing in overdentures, full dentures, and natural dentitions. J Dent Res. 2000; 79(7):1519-24. DOI: 10.1177/00220345000790071501. View

Sivolella S, Meggiorin S, Ferrarese N, Lupi A, Cavallin F, Fiorino A . CT-based dentulous mandibular alveolar ridge measurements as predictors of crown-to-implant ratio for short and extra short dental implants. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):16229. PMC: 7530749. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-73180-3. View

Penarrocha-Oltra D, Candel-Marti E, Ata-Ali J, Penarrocha-Diago M . Rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla with tilted implants: review of the literature. J Oral Implantol. 2011; 39(5):625-32. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00068. View

Pozzi A, Sannino G, Barlattani A . Minimally invasive treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla: a proof-of-concept prospective study with a follow-up of between 36 and 54 months. J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 108(5):286-97. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60178-4. View

Monteiro D, Silva E, Pellizzer E, Magro Filho O, Goiato M . Posterior partially edentulous jaws, planning a rehabilitation with dental implants. World J Clin Cases. 2015; 3(1):65-76. PMC: 4295221. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i1.65. View

Cucchi A, Vignudelli E, Franceschi D, Randellini E, Lizio G, Fiorino A . Vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation using customized CAD/CAM titanium mesh with versus without resorbable membranes. A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32(12):1411-1424. PMC: 9293224. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13841. View

Fontana F, Maschera E, Rocchietta I, Simion M . Clinical classification of complications in guided bone regeneration procedures by means of a nonresorbable membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011; 31(3):265-73. View

10.

Cruz R, de Araujo Lemos C, de Souza Batista V, Fernandes E Oliveira H, Gomes J, Pellizzer E . Short implants versus longer implants with maxillary sinus lift. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Braz Oral Res. 2018; 32:e86. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0086. View

12.

Starch-Jensen T, Nielsen H . Prosthetic Rehabilitation of the Partially Edentulous Atrophic Posterior Mandible with Short Implants (≤ 8 mm) Compared with the Sandwich Osteotomy and Delayed Placement of Standard Length Implants (> 8 mm): a Systematic Review. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2018; 9(2):e2. PMC: 6090250. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2018.9202. View

14.

Thoma D, Cha J, Jung U . Treatment concepts for the posterior maxilla and mandible: short implants versus long implants in augmented bone. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2017; 47(1):2-12. PMC: 5332331. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2017.47.1.2. View

15.

Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I . All-on-4® Treatment Concept for the Rehabilitation of the Completely Edentulous Mandible: A 7-Year Clinical and 5-Year Radiographic Retrospective Case Series with Risk Assessment for Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Level. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 17 Suppl 2:e531-41. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12282. View

16.

Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Nunes M . The All-on-4 concept for full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae: A longitudinal study with 5-13 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21(4):538-549. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12771. View

17.

Cucchi A, Vignudelli E, Franco S, Ghensi P, Malchiodi L, Corinaldesi G . Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Straight and Tilted Implants in Patients Rehabilitated by Immediate-Loaded Full-Arch All-on-4 or All-on-6: A Prospective Study. J Oral Implantol. 2019; 45(6):434-443. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00152. View

18.

Taschieri S, Corbella S, Fabbro M . Mini-invasive osteotome sinus floor elevation in partially edentulous atrophic maxilla using reduced length dental implants: interim results of a prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 16(2):185-93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00483.x. View

19.

Malchiodi L, Moro T, Cattina D, Cucchi A, Ghensi P, Nocini P . Implant rehabilitation of the edentulous jaws: Does tilting of posterior implants at an angle greater than 45° affect bone resorption and implant success?: A retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20(5):867-874. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12655. View

20.

Cocchetto R, Resch I, Castagna M, Vincenzi G, Celletti R . The abutment duplication technique: a novel protocol for cementable implant-supported restorations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010; 30(4):415-24. View

21.

Guglielmi F, Staderini E, Iavarone F, Di Tonno L, Gallenzi P . Zimmermann-Laband-1 Syndrome: Clinical, Histological, and Proteomic Findings of a 3-Year-Old Patient with Hereditary Gingival Fibromatosis. Biomedicines. 2019; 7(3). PMC: 6783959. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines7030048. View

22.

Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Ippolito D, Esposito M . Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: result at 8 years after loading from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018; 11(4):385-395. View