Search

Background: Recent data have shown that short dental implants can be the preferred treatment in most of cases of posterior atrophic alveolar ridges, offering higher survival and lower complication rates than long implants. The survival rates, stability, and marginal bone level changes were compared between short implants (7 and 8.5 mm) and standard-length implants (≥10 mm)., Methods: Prospective observational study in which adult patients requiring ≥1 osseointegrated implants to replace missing teeth were recruited consecutively. A clinical examination was performed on the day the definitive prosthesis was placed and after 6 and 12 months. Implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone level (MBL) changes, and the correlation between these parameters and the characteristics of the implants were evaluated., Results: A total of 99 implants were inserted (47 short, 52 standard) in 74 patients. The 12-month survival rate was 100%. ISQ values showed a similar pattern for both types of implants. No correlation was found between ISQ changes after one year and MBL values, nor between the latter and the characteristics of the implants., Conclusions: With clinical treatment criteria, shorter implants (7 and 8.5 mm in length) can be just as useful as standard-length implants in atrophic alveolar ridges, demonstrating similar rates of survival, stability, and crestal bone loss.

Background: The size of dental implants is a key success factor for appropriate osseointegration. Using shorter implants allows the possibility of avoiding complex surgical procedures and reduces the morbidity of treatment. Shorter implants also enable implant-prosthetic rehabilitation after maxillofacial reconstructions where only limited bone is available. In this study, the success rates of short implants were examined and compared to those of standard-sized implants. Methods: Patients who received dental implants between 2007 and 2016 at the Department of Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology Semmelweis University were enrolled in the study. Several clinical parameters were recorded and supplemented with radiological examinations. The data were statistically analysed. Results: Thirty-four patients with a total of 60 implants were included. The average time after prosthetic loading was 39.33 ± 21.96 months in the group with 8-mm implants and 41.6 ± 27.5 months in the group with > 8-mm implants. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of probing depth (short implants, 2.84 ± 0.09 mm; standard implants, 2.91 ± 0.35 mm) or mean marginal bone loss (short implants, 1.2 ± 1.21-mm mesially and 1.36 ± 1.47-mm distally; standard implants: 0.63 ± 0.80-mm mesially and 0.78 ± 0.70-mm distally). Conclusions: In this study, the success rate of short dental implants was comparable to that of standard-sized implants. Consequently, it can be claimed that the long-term success of short dental implants does not differ significantly from the long-term success of standard implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of short implants (<8 mm length) as an alternative to sinus lift surgery and placement of standard-length implants (10-12 mm length) for rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla. Materials and Methods: In this prospective clinical trial, 26 patients with 6-7 mm of residual alveolar bone height in their atrophic posterior maxilla were randomly divided into two groups (n=13). The test group received short implants without sinus lift surgery while the control group received standard-length implants after maxillary sinus floor augmentation. The bone loss was evaluated at 1 to 2 years after loading of implants on radiographies and the comparison between the two groups was done using chi-square test. Results: At 1 year, two patients (15.4%) in the short implant and one patient (7.7%) in the standard implant group experienced bone loss (P=0.5). At 2 years, four patients (30.8%) in the short implant and two patients (15.4%) in the standard implant group showed bone loss (P=0.4). Conclusion: At 2 years after loading, the bone loss was not significantly different around short and standard-length implants. Short implants appeared to be a suitable alternative to sinus lift surgery and placement of standard-length implants for rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla. However, further studies with longer follow ups are still required to cast a final judgment in this respect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical response of the peri-implant bone to standard, short-wide, and double mini implants replacing missing molar supporting either hybrid ceramic crowns (Lava Ultimate restorative) or full-metal crowns under two different loading conditions (axial and off-axial loading) using strain gauge analysis. Methods: Three single-molar implant designs, (1) single, 3.8-mm (regular) diameter implant, (2) single, 5.8-mm (wide) diameter implant, and (3) two 2.5-mm diameter (double) implants connected through a single-molar crown, were embedded in epoxy resin by the aid of a surveyor to ensure their parallelism. Each implant supported full-metal crowns made of Ni-Cr alloy and hybrid ceramic with standardized dimensions. Epoxy resin casts were prepared to receive 4 strain gauges around each implant design, on the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal surfaces. Results were analyzed statistically. Results: Results showed that implant design has statistically significant effect on peri-implant microstrains, where the standard implant showed the highest mean microstrain values followed by double mini implants, while the short-wide implant showed the lowest mean microstrain values. Concerning the superstructure material, implants supporting Lava Ultimate crowns had statistically significant higher mean microstrain values than those supporting full-metal crowns. Concerning the load direction, off-axial loading caused uneven distribution of load with statistically significant higher microstrain values on the site of off-axial loading (distal surface) than the axial loading. Conclusions: Implant design, superstructure material, and load direction significantly affect peri-implant microstrains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared the biomechanical responses of 3 single crowns supported by 3 different implants under axial and off-axial loading. A standard implant (3.75 mm diameter, 13 mm length), a mini implant (3 mm diameter, 13 mm length), and a short-wide implant (5.7 mm diameter, 8 mm length) were embedded in epoxy resin by the aid of a surveyor to ensure their parallelism. Each implant supported a full metal crown made of Ni-Cr alloy with standardized dimensions. Strain gauges and finite element analysis (FEA) were used to measure the strain induced under axial and off-axial functional loads of 300 N. Results showed that mini implants recorded the highest microstrains, under both axial and off-axial loading. All implants showed a considerable increase in strain values under off-axial loading. Standard and short-wide implants proved to be preferable in supporting crowns, as the standard implant showed the lowest strains under axial and off-axial loading using FEA simulation, while the short-wide implant showed the lowest strains under nonaxial loading using strain gauge analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]