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

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.

Download Full-text

Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

Healthcare ◽

10.3390/healthcare9030315 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 315

Author(s):

Vittorio Moraschini ◽

Carlos Fernando de Almeida Barros Mourão ◽

Pietro Montemezzi ◽

Ingrid Chaves Cavalcante Kischinhevsky ◽

Daniel Costa Ferreira de Almeida ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Bone Loss ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Implant Survival Rate ◽

Short Implants ◽

Prosthetic Complications

This systematic review (SR) aimed to evaluate implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), and biological/prosthetic complications of extra-short 4 mm dental implants. An electronic search without language or date restrictions was performed in five databases and in gray literature for articles published until August 2020. Prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the clinical performance of extra-short 4 mm dental implants were included. Studies were independently assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. The protocol of this SR was registered in the PROSPERO database under number CRD42019139709. Four studies were included in the present SR. There was no significant difference in implant survival rate (p = 0.75) between extra-short 4 mm and long implants. After 12 months of function, the extra-short implants had a significantly (p = 0.003) lower marginal bone loss (MBL) rate when compared to long implants. Extra-short implants had a lower number of biological and prosthetic complications when compared to long implants. After 12 months of follow-up, extra-short 4 mm dental implants placed in the mandible exhibit satisfactory clinical outcomes concerning implant survival rate and MBL when compared to longer implants, with a low number of biological and prosthetic complications. A higher number of RCTs with longer follow-up is necessary for the future.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm9123943 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (12) ◽

pp. 3943

Author(s):

João Caramês ◽

Ana Catarina Pinto ◽

Gonçalo Caramês ◽

Helena Francisco ◽

Joana Fialho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Retrospective Study ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Cox Regression ◽

Survival Rates ◽

High Survival ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Posterior Maxilla ◽

Clinical Records

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.

Download Full-text

Oral Rehabilitation of Oncology Patients With Microvascular Free Flaps With a Follow-Up of 2 to 6 Years

10.21203/rs.3.rs-811994/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Funda Goker ◽

Alessandro Baj ◽

Alessandro Remigio Bolzoni ◽

Carlo Maiorana ◽

Giada Beltramini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Survival Rate ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Free Flaps ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Oral Rehabilitation ◽

Implant Survival Rate ◽

Maxillofacial Reconstruction ◽

Microvascular Free Flaps

Abstract BACKGROUND: Reconstruction with free flaps after radical cancer surgery in terms of function and esthetics can be quite demanding. The aim of this study was to evaluate retrospectively oral rehabilitation with microvascular free flaps and dental implants for maxillofacial reconstruction in oncologic patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years after implant insertions.METHODS: The study consisted of 17 patients diagnosed with either squamous cell carcinoma, fusocellular carcinoma, or mucoepidermoid carcinoma. The reconstruction of the maxillofacial defects was done with microvascular free flaps (free fibular flap, antero-lateral thigh flap, or radial forearm flap). Implants were inserted on the average 30.2±15.5 months after reconstructive operations. A total of 74 implants were inserted. Mean follow up after maxillo-facial surgery was 6.16 years (mean 73.93±14.48 months). Mean follow up after implant insertions was 3.61 years (mean 43.50±12.96). Primary outcome was implant survival. Secondary outcome was evaluation of post-surgical complications.RESULTS: There were surgical revisions in seven patients after reconstructive surgery with flaps, mainly due to tumor relapse. Complications were seen in 11 patients. 1 implant was lost in a female patient 15 months after placement. Overall implant survival rate was 97.5%. No relations were found between implant survival rate and gender, type of tumor, type of microvascular free flap, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and prosthesis type.CONCLUSION: According to the results of this study, oral rehabilitation with dental implants inserted in free flaps for maxillofacial reconstruction after ablative oncologic surgery can be considered as a safe treatment modality with successful outcomes.

Download Full-text

Implants Survival Rate in Regenerated Sites with Innovative Graft Biomaterials: 1 Year Follow-Up

Materials ◽

10.3390/ma14185292 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 14 (18) ◽

pp. 5292

Author(s):

Elio Minetti ◽

Martin Celko ◽

Marcello Contessi ◽

Fabrizio Carini ◽

Ugo Gambardella ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Survival Rate ◽

Bone Loss ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Dental Implant ◽

Graft Material ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Socket Preservation ◽

Implant Survival Rate ◽

Bone Biopsies

In thirteen different dental clinics in Singapore, Spain, Czech Republic and Italy, 504 patients were selected, and 483 dental implants were placed in maxillary sites after alveolar socket preservation (ASP) procedures with an autologous demineralized tooth extracted as graft material from an innovative Tooth Transformer device was obtained. All procedures used were reported in n°638 Ethical Committee surgical protocol of University of Chieti and approved. After 4 months, at dental implant placing, bone biopsies were performed to evaluate the histologic outcomes, and 12 months after implant loading, global implant survival rate, failure percentage and peri-implant bone loss were detected. After ASP, only 27 post-operative complications were observed and after 4 months, bone biopsy histomorphometric analysis showed a high percentage of bone volume (BV) 43.58 (±12.09), and vital new bone (NB) 32.38 (±17.15) with an absence of inflammation or necrosis areas. Twelve months after loading, only 10 dental implants failed (2.3%), with a 98.2% overall implant survival rate, nine cases showed mucositis (1.8%) and eight showed peri-implantitis (1.6%). At mesial sites, 0.43 mm (±0.83) of bone loss around the implants was detected and 0.23 mm (±0.38) at the distal sites with an average value of 0.37 mm (±0.68) (p > 0.568). Several studies with a longer follow-up will be necessary to confirm the preliminary data observed. However, clinical results seem to suggest that the post-extraction socket preservation procedure using innovative demineralized autologous tooth-derived biomaterial may be a predictable procedure to produce new vital bone able to support dental implant rehabilitation of maxilla edentulous sites.

Download Full-text

Retrospective analysis of 2,244 implants and the importance of follow-up in implantology

Journal of Research in Dentistry ◽

10.19177/jrd.v2e62014555-565 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 2 (6) ◽

pp. 555

Author(s):

Ivete Aparecida de Mattias Sartori ◽

Roseli Trevisan Latenek ◽

Lucimara Aguiar Budel ◽

Geninho Thomé ◽

Sérgio Rocha Bernardes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Survival Rate ◽

Soft Tissues ◽

Clinical Analysis ◽

Joint Stability ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Essential Information ◽

Restorative Treatment ◽

Implant Survival Rate ◽

Bone Level

AIM: A retrospective clinical analysis evaluated the clinical behavior of the prosthetic restorations, screw joint stability, peri-implant bone level and soft tissues, implant survival rate and patient satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data was collected from follow-up visits of 444 patients, aged from 26 to 88 years, that were rehabilitated with 2,244 implants placed between 2005 and 2010. RESULTS: The implant survival rate was 99.73%, 94.78% for prosthetic screws, and 96.70% for abutment screws. Peri-implant bone levels remained stable (bone loss equal or less than 1 mm) in 96.21% of the implants. Plaque accumulation was present in 275 patients and was associated with gingival bleeding in 66 patients. Three hundred and thirty patients were satisfied, 103 were somewhat satisfied, 7 patients expected more from their restorative treatment, and 4 patients were dissatisfied. CONCLUSION: Continuous follow-up of patients with implant restorations provides essential information on the behavior of implants and prosthetic components, enbling the early intervention in minor prosthetic complications (e.g. screw loosening) to avoid future major complications (e.g. implant failure).

Download Full-text

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

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/0103-6440201300265 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 26 (4) ◽

pp. 325-336 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

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>

Download Full-text

Clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in the same region where previous implants failed due to peri-implantitis: a retrospective study

International Journal of Implant Dentistry ◽

10.1186/s40729-021-00392-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Eduardo Anitua ◽

Adriana Montalvillo ◽

Asier Eguia ◽

Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat

Keyword(s):

Retrospective Study ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Bone Loss ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Demographic Data ◽

High Survival ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Bone Level

Abstract Purpose There is paucity in the studies that assess dental implants replacing failed dental implants due to peri-implantitis. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these implants in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss. Methods Patients in this retrospective study were selected if having one or more implants removed due to peri-implantitis and the placement and loading of dental implants in the same region from April 2010 to December 2019. Information was collected about the patient's demographic data, implant dimensions, surgical and prosthetic variables. Changes in peri-implant bone level, cumulative implant survival rate and technical complications were assessed. Results Three hundred and eighty one dental implants in 146 patients that were placed in the same position or one-tooth position mesially/distally to the site of explantation were included. The patients' mean age was 63 ± 10 years. Ninety seven patients were females and 49 were males. After a mean follow-up of 34 ± 17 months, two implants failed. The cumulative survival rate was 99%. The marginal bone loss was −0.1 ± 0.6. Immediate or delay replacement of the failed implant did not affect implant survival or marginal bone stability. All the prostheses were screw-retained and presented the following complications: ceramic chipping (3 events), resin tooth fracture (1 event) and prosthetic screw loosening (1 event). Conclusions Dental implants replacing failed implants due to peri-implantitis would be an option in the management of peri-implantitis. They showed high survival rate and marginal bone stability.

Download Full-text

Implant survival rate in calvarial bone grafts: A retrospective clinical study with 10 year follow‐up

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research ◽

10.1111/cid.12799 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Raffaele Vinci ◽

Giulia Teté ◽

Federico Raimondi Lucchetti ◽

Paolo Capparé ◽

Enrico Felice Gherlone

Keyword(s):

Clinical Study ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Bone Grafts ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Calvarial Bone ◽

Implant Survival Rate ◽

Retrospective Clinical Study

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029826 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (10) ◽

pp. e029826 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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).

Download Full-text