Author:
Hirani Murtaza,Arnantha Hannah,Al-Mossallami Azza,Paolinelis George
Abstract
AbstractAim In clinically challenging scenarios with limited bone height and anatomical restrictions, the use of short implants have been proposed as a potential treatment strategy. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of short implants supporting prostheses in the posterior premolar region of the maxilla and mandible.Materials and methods A total of 30 patients requiring short 6 mm length implant placement in the posterior premolar region were included. Following a period of osseointegration, the implants were restored with either single crowns, fixed bridges or implant-supported removable overdentures. Implant and prosthetic survival with technical complications were recorded.Results In total, 45 implants were placed, with four failures reported before loading in two patients, resulting in a patient implant survival rate of 93.3% over the two-year follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference found between implant failure and arch placement. Prosthetic survival was 100% and minor technical complications recorded were low.Conclusion This study showed that short 6 mm implants could provide a viable treatment option, with high survival rates comparable with alternative bone augmentation procedures. Further research with longer observation periods would be required to validate these current findings.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference30 articles.
1. Bell R B, Blakey G H, White R P, Hillebrand D G, Molina A. Staged reconstruction of the severely atrophic mandible with autogenous bone graft and endosteal implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 60: 1135-1141.
2. Morand M, Irinakis T. The challenge of implant therapy in the posterior maxilla: providing a rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 2007; 33: 257-266.
3. Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Esposito M. Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: a randomised controlled trial with 5-year after loading follow-up. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014; 7: 359-369.
4. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 35-51.
5. Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38: 856-863.