A review on biomechanical factors and prosthetic design parameters on survival rate of short implants

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sourabh Damkale ◽  
Yash Keskar ◽  
Pankaj Dhatrak
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Design Parameters ◽  
Prosthetic Design ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Biomechanical Factors

scholarly journals Short (6 mm) and Regular Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla–7-Years Follow-up Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 940
Author(s):  
Jakub Hadzik ◽  
Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross ◽  
Izabela Nawrot-Hadzik ◽  
Tomasz Gedrange ◽  
Artur Pitułaj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Implant Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Bone Level

Short 6 mm dental implants are considered as an alternative to the maxillary sinus elevation and bone augmentation procedure where there is a reduced alveolar ridge height. The aim of this study was to compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants (6 mm) and regular length implants (11–13 mm) when placed in combination with bone grafting and loaded with a single non splinted crown, seven years after placing the implant. It was conducted as a controlled clinical study of 30 patients with partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla. The protocol included radiological and clinical evaluation of the C/I ratio (length of the superstructure divided by the length of the implant crestal part), marginal bone level (MBL), ultrasonography measurement of soft tissue surrounding implant (STT), patient-reported outcomes, and biological and technical complications. A total number of 28 implants (93%) remained integrated during follow-up period. MBL of 0.50 and 0.52 mm was observed for short implants and regular implants, respectively. MBL was checked for correlation with STT, and a negative correlation was found between MBL: STT. Our study has demonstrated a significantly lower implant survival rate for short implants compared to regular implants (87% compared to 100%). Despite the loss of several implants, good clinical results were achieved in the remaining implants in both groups. It is, therefore, worth considering short implants as an alternative to regular implants with a sinus lift surgery.

scholarly journals A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoran Yu ◽  
Ruogu Xu ◽  
Zhengchuan Zhang ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Feilong Deng
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Complications Rate

AbstractExtra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P  = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: − 0.22, CI − 0.277 to − 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI − 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

scholarly journals Long-term Short Implants Performance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Essential Assessment Parameters

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thais Marques Simek Vega Gonçalves ◽  
Sergio Bortolini ◽  
Matteo Martinolli ◽  
Bruna Fernandes Moreira Alfenas ◽  
Daiane Cristina Peruzzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Implant Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants

<p>Lack of standard criteria in the outcome assessment makes it difficult to draw conclusions on the clinical performance of short implants and, under these circumstances, determine the reasons for implant failure. This study evaluated, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, the essential parameters required to assess the long-term clinical performance of short and extra-short implants. Electronic databases (Pubmed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Database, Embase, and Lilacs) were searched by two independent reviewers, without language limitation, to identify eligible papers. References from the selected articles were also reviewed. The review included clinical trials involving short dental implants placed in humans, published between January 2000 and March 2014, which described the parameters applied for outcome's measurements and provided data on survival rates. Thirteen methodologically acceptable studies were selected and 24 parameters were identified. The most frequent parameters assessed were the marginal bone loss and the cumulative implant survival rate, followed by implant failure rate and biological complications such as bleeding on probing and probing pocket depths. Only cumulative implant survival rate data allows meta-analysis revealing a positive effect size (from 0.052 (fixed) to 0.042 (random)), which means that short implant appears to be a successful treatment option. Mechanical complications and crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio measurement were also commonly described, however, considering the available evidence; no strong conclusions could be drawn since different methods were used to assess each parameter. By means of this literature review, a standard evaluation scheme is proposed, being helpful to regiment further investigations and comparisons on future studies.</p>

scholarly journals Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 354-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscila N. Uehara ◽  
Victor Haruo Matsubara ◽  
Fernando Igai ◽  
Newton Sesma ◽  
Marcio K. Mukai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Bone Area ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Short Implants

Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate and the marginal bone loss between short implants (≤7 mm) placed in the atrophic area and longer implants placed in the augmented bone area of posterior regions of maxillaries. Methods: Electronic search using three databases was performed up to May 2017 to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) assessing short implants survival with a minimal follow-up of 12 months post-loading. For the meta-analysis, a Risk Difference (RD) with the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was used to pool the results of implant failure rate for each treatment group. For the marginal bone changes, Mean Differences (MD) with 95% CI were calculated. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, being included in qualitative and quantitative analyses. The RD between the short implant group and the control group was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.00), I2=0 and Chi2=3.14, indicating a favorable survival rate for short implant, but with no statistical significance (p=0.09). Discussion: For marginal bone loss, the mean difference was -0,13 (95%CI: -0.22 to -0.05), favoring the test group with statistical significance (p=0.002). The studies showed more heterogeneity for bone loss compared to survival rate. Short and longer implants showed similar survival rates after one year of loading, however the marginal bone loss around short implants was lower than in longer implants sites. Conclusion: Placement of implants ≤7 mm of length was found to be a predictable alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior regions, avoiding all the disadvantages intrinsic to bone augmentation procedures.

scholarly journals Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e029826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Yan ◽  
Xinyu Wu ◽  
Meiying Su ◽  
Fang Hua ◽  
Bin Shi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Quality Evidence

ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1–3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1–3 years follow-up (MD=−0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=−0.25 mm, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

scholarly journals Survival rate evaluation of short implants – A retrospective study

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (S19) ◽  
pp. 398-398
Author(s):  
Eduardo Claudio Dias Lopes Chaves E Mello ◽  
Mario Groisman ◽  
Guaracilei Maciel Vidigal
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Rate Evaluation

Implant Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Loss of 6-mm Short Implants: A 2-Year Clinical Report

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 1425-1428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Bratu ◽  
Hsun-Liang Chan ◽  
Sorin Mihali ◽  
Olimpiu Karancsi ◽  
Dana Bratu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Report ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Implant Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants

A systematic review of the survival rate on short implants

2009 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun-Jeong Lee ◽  
Won Kim ◽  
Ji-Young Choi ◽  
Seong-Mi Kim ◽  
Nam-Sik Oh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants

scholarly journals Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Short Implants Placed in the Posterior Mandible: A 1-Year Pilot Split-Mouth Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 250-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mireia Haro Adánez ◽  
Miha Brezavšček ◽  
Kirstin Vach ◽  
Manrique Fonseca ◽  
Wael Att
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Prolonged Treatment ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Probing Depth ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Bone Gain

In many cases, due to anatomical limitations, the placement of regular-length implants cannot be facilitated without the performance of advanced surgical procedures. However, these are associated with morbidity, prolonged treatment time, and costs. To overcome such disadvantages, short implants were introduced. The aim of this prospective pilot split-mouth study was to compare the clinical outcome between short implants (7 mm) and regular-length (≥10 mm) implants placed in the posterior mandible after 1 year of prosthetic delivery. Ten patients received 4 implants in the posterior mandible. Two short implants were placed in one side and 2 regular-length implants were placed contralaterally. These were restored by means of splinted screw-retained metal-ceramic crowns. Marginal bone loss (MBL) and soft-tissue parameters were compared. No implant failed. Both types of implants showed success rates of 90% and survival rates of 100%. From prosthetic delivery to 1 year post-loading a bone gain of +0.29 mm for short implants and +0.19 mm for regular-length implants was present without showing any statistically significant differences in MBL between the 2 implant types (P &gt; .05). Bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, probing depth, and crown-to-implant ratio did not show any statistically significant differences between the 2 implant lengths (P &gt; .05). One case of chipping occurred in the regular-length implant group, leading to a prosthetic survival rate of 95%. Short implants showed a prosthetic survival rate of 100%. After 1 year, short implants showed comparable clinical outcomes to that of regular-length implants, making them a viable treatment option in the posterior mandible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document