Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region

Sinus Floor Elevation with Modified Crestal Approach and Single Loaded Short Implants: A Case Report with 4 Years of Follow-Up

Tooth extraction is usually followed by bone reduction. In the maxillary posterior region, this remodelling combined with sinus pneumatisation and periodontal defects may lead to a reduced basal bone height available for implant placement. Sinus floor elevation can be performed with different surgical techniques. Crestal approach has demonstrated to be effective, less invasive, and associated with a reduced morbidity. This article reports a modified sinus floor elevation by means of rotary, noncutting instruments, addition of xenograft, and 2 short-threaded implant placements. The aim of the study was to evaluate the implant's success and intrasinus radiographical bone gain after 4 years of functional loading. The premolar implant site presented a starting basal bone height of 6 mm, while the molar site was of 2 mm. In the first surgical step, sinus floor elevation was performed mesially and the implant was inserted, and distally only sinus floor elevation was performed. After 6 months, the mesial implant was uncovered and the second implant was inserted; 4 months later, the second fixture was uncovered, and both fixtures were loaded with single provisional screw-retained crowns and later with single screw-retained porcelain fused to metal crowns. Implants integrated successfully, and crestal bone remodelling did not exceed the smooth collar. Bone gain was 3 mm for the mesial implant and more than 5 mm for the distal one.

Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: Three-year results of a randomized clinical study

BACKGROUND

Several treatment options exist for the implant-supported rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla.

PURPOSE

To compare maxillary sinus floor augmentation associated to standard length implants, with direct placement of implants of reduced length in the available residual bone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with edentulous posterior maxilla and a residual height of 4-7 mm were randomly allocated to the test (short implants [SIs], 6.5 to 8.5mm long) or the control (sinus augmentation [SA] and implants ≥10mm long) group. Anorganic bovine bone was the grafting material for the control group. In both groups pure platelet-rich plasma was used to bioactivate implant surface prior to insertion. Implant and prosthesis survival, clinical variables, radiographic bone level change, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were treated in the control group (58 standard length implants) and 27 in the test group (42 SIs). After 3 years of follow-up no implant failure and biological or mechanical complications were recorded. Marginal bone loss, soft tissue, and oral hygiene parameters were similar in the 2 groups at both 1 and 3 years' follow-up. Postoperative pain, swelling and other symptoms and daily activities were better in the SIs group than in the SA group, while patients' satisfaction after 1 year was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of comparable medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, when the residual ridge height is sufficient for a safe placement, SIs may be preferred due to simplified protocol, less invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced postoperative discomfort as compared to SA.

Recent advances in dental implants

Dental implants are a common treatment for the loss of teeth. This paper summarizes current knowledge on implant surfaces, immediate loading versus conventional loading, short implants, sinus lifting, and custom implants using three-dimensional printing. Most of the implant surface modifications showed good osseointegration results. Regarding biomolecular coatings, which have been recently developed and studied, good results were observed in animal experiments. Immediate loading had similar clinical outcomes compared to conventional loading and can be used as a successful treatment because it has the advantage of reducing treatment times and providing early function and aesthetics. Short implants showed similar clinical outcomes compared to standard implants. A variety of sinus augmentation techniques, grafting materials, and alternative techniques, such as tilted implants, zygomatic implants, and short implants, can be used. With the development of new technologies in three-dimension and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized implants can be used as an alternative to conventional implant designs. However, there are limitations due to the lack of long-term studies or clinical studies. A long-term clinical trial and a more predictive study are needed.

Cumulative Success Rate of Short and Ultrashort Implants Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Maxilla: A 3-Year Retrospective Study

AIM

To determine cumulative success rate (CSR) of short and ultrashort implants in the posterior maxilla restored with single crowns.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective study in 65 patients with 139 implants. 46 were ultrashort and 93 short. Implants were placed with a staged approach and restored with single crowns. Success rate, clinical and radiographic outcomes, and crown-to-implant ratio (CIR) were assessed after three years. Statistical analysis was performed by descriptive and inferential statistics. A log-binomial regression model where the main outcome was implant success was achieved. Coefficients and 95% confidence intervals were reported. Analyses were performed with Stata 13.2 for Windows.

RESULTS

61.54% of patients were female and mean overall age was 51.9 ± 11.08 years old. Overall CSR was 97.1% (95% CI: 92.4-98.9): 97.9 and 95.1% for short and ultrashort, respectively (P value: 0.33). Four implants failed. Covariates were not associated with CSR (P value > 0.05). Regression model showed coefficients correlated with implant success for ultrashort implants (0.87) and most of covariates but none were statistically significant (P values > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that short and ultrashort implants may be successfully placed and restored with single crowns in the resorbed maxillary molar region.

Evaluation of four designs of short implants placed in atrophic areas with reduced bone height: a three-year, retrospective, clinical and radiographic study

The aim of the present study was to evaluate retrospectively the clinical and radiographic behaviour of four commercially-available short implants with different macrodesigns and microdesigns in areas in which the height of the bone was reduced. We took into account the success and survival, peri-implant crestal bone loss, and the level of probing at which the gum bled. Patients were included if they had been given one or more short implants (≤8.5mm long) in the posterior jaws at least three years earlier. Three hundred and ninety-one short implants were placed in 170 subjects, and were divided in four groups based on the brand of implant. The implants were evaluated one, two, and three years after they had been inserted. Short implants had a three-year survival and success rate of 90% in all groups, and bone loss was acceptable after three years with no significant differences between them. These results support the use of short implants as an effective and safe treatment. However, within the limitations of this study, the design of the implant does seem to influence the behaviour of peri-implant bone at the crestal level.

Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols-a pilot study

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare a parallel wall design implant to a tapered apex design implant when placed in the posterior maxilla using two different surgical protocols.

Methods

Twenty-seven patients (30 implants) were divided into three groups. All implants were 4 mm wide in diameter and 8 mm long.

Group A received 10 tapered implants (OSPTX) (Astra Tech OsseoSpeed TX™) using the soft bone surgical protocol (TXSoft).

Group B received 10 tapered implants (OSPTX) (AstraTech OsseoSpeedTX™) using the standard surgical protocol (TXStd).

Group C received 10 parallel wall implants (OSP) (AstraTech OsseoSpeed™) using the standard surgical protocol (OStd).

All implants were placed in the posterior maxilla in areas with a minimum of 8-mm crestal bone height.

Resonance frequency measurements (implant stability quotient (ISQ)) and torque values were recorded to determine initial implant stability. All implants were uncovered 6 weeks after placement and restored with a functionally loaded resin provisional screw-retained crown. Resonance frequency measurements were recorded at the time of implant placement, at 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months. Twelve months after implant placement, the stability of the implants was recorded and the final restorations were placed using custom CAD/CAM fabricated abutments and cement-retained PFM DSIGN porcelain crowns. After implant restoration, bone levels were measured at 6 and 12 months with standardized radiographs.

Results

Radiographic mean bone loss was less than 0.5 mm in all groups, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. Implant survival rate at 1 year was 93.3%, with 2/30 implants failing to integrate prior to functional loading at 6 weeks. No statistically significant difference was found between ISQ measurements between the three groups at all time intervals measured. Strong positive correlations were found between overall bone loss at 6 months and insertion torque at time of placement. A very weak correlation was found between insertion torque and ISQ values at time of implant placement.

Conclusions

Survival and stability of OSPTX and OSP implants is comparable. Osteotomy preparation by either standard or soft bone surgical protocol presented no significant effect on implant survival and stability for the specific implant designs.

Inlay osteotome sinus floor elevation with concentrated growth factor application and simultaneous short implant placement in severely atrophic maxilla

Sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement in severely atrophic maxilla is challenging. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the short-term performance of modified osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) with concentrated growth factor (CGF) application and concurrent placement of a short implant in cases with residual bone height (RBH) of 2-4 mm. Twenty-five short implants were installed in 16 patients with mean RBH of 3.23 mm using modified OSFE with CGFs from January 2012 to April 2014. Postoperatively, the implants were clinically evaluated, and vertical bone gain (VBG) was measured using cone beam computed tomography. The mean duration of follow-up was 19.88 months (12-32 months). All the implants were stable with an overall survival rate of 100%. The mean VBG immediately after surgery was 9.21 mm. Six months later, significant reduction of alveolar bone height (2.90 ± 0.22 mm) was found (P < 0.05). During the second 6-month period, further alveolar bone resorption (0.14 ± 0.11 mm) was noted but without significance (P > 0.05). Within the limits of this study, modified OSFE with CGF application and simultaneous short implant placement could yield predictable clinical results for severely atrophic maxilla with RBH of 2-4 mm.

Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare short implants (equal or less than 8mm) versus standard implants (larger than 8mm) placed in posterior regions of maxilla and mandible, evaluating survival rates of implants, marginal bone loss, complications and prosthesis failures.

DATA

This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42015016588. Main search terms were used in combination: dental implant, short implant, short dental implants, short dental implants posterior, short dental implants maxilla, and short dental implants mandible.

SOURCE

An electronic search for data published up until September/2015 was undertaken using the PubMed/Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, randomized controlled trials and/or prospective studies, which evaluated short implants in comparison to standard implants in the same study.

CONCLUSION

The search identified 1460 references, after inclusion criteria 13 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1269 patients, who had received a total of 2631 dental implants. The results showed that there was no significant difference of implants survival (P=.24; RR:1.35; CI: 0.82-2.22), marginal bone loss (P=.06; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.41 to 0.00), complications (P=.08; RR:0.54; CI: 0.27-1.09) and prosthesis failures (P=.92; RR:0.96; CI: 0.44-2.09). Short implants are considered a predictable treatment for posterior jaws. However, short implants with length less than 8 mm (4-7 mm) should be used with caution because they present greater risks to failures compared to standard implants.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Short implants are frequently placed in the posterior area in order to avoid complementary surgical procedures. However, clinicians need to be aware that short implants with length less than 8mm present greater risk of failures.

Dental Implants

Dental implants restore function to near normal in partially or completely edentulous patients. A root-form implant is the most frequently used type of dental implant today. The basis for dental implants is osseointegration, in which osteoblasts grow and directly integrate with the surface of titanium posts surgically embedded into the jaw. Radiologic assessment is critical in the preoperative evaluation of the dental implant patient, as the exact height, width, and contour of the alveolar ridge must be determined. Moreover, the precise locations of the maxillary sinuses and mandibular canals, as well as their relationships to the site of implant surgery must be ascertained. As such, radiologists must be familiar with implant design and surgical placement, as well as augmentation procedures utilized in those patients with insufficient bone in the maxilla and mandible to support dental implants.

Clinical evaluation of short 6-mm implants alone, short 8-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation and standard 10-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in posterior maxillae: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Nowadays, short dental implants are being increasingly applied in extremely resorbed posterior regions. The recent studies have indicated that short implants present a similar success rate to conventional implants. It is assumed that short implants can avoid additional surgical morbidity and are less technically demanding. However, high-quality evidence (≥Ib: evidence from at least one randomized controlled trial) on comparing the clinical outcome of short implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) technique is limited.

Methods/Design

The proposed study is designed as a prospective single-center, three-arm parallel group, randomized controlled trial. We plan to enroll 150 patients in need of dental implant treatment in the posterior maxilla. The inclusion criteria include: age ≧18 years, partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla for at least 3 months from tooth loss, residual bone height ranging from 6 to 8 mm, sufficient bone width (≥6 mm) in the edentulous region. The patients will be divided into three groups according to a table of random numbers: group 1: short implants (6 mm) alone; group 2: short implants (8 mm) combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE); group 3: standard implants (10 mm) combined with OSFE. The assignment will be concealed from the clinical operators until the beginning of implant surgery. The outcome examiners and patients will be kept blinded to the assignment. Implant survival rates, implant success rates, complications, resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measurements, marginal bone level, treatment time and patient-reported outcome (visual analogue scale for intraoperative discomfort and postoperative pain) will be recorded. Clinical re-evaluations will be performed at 12, 24, 36 and 60 months after crown placement.

Discussion

The results of the trial will support better decision-making for dental implant treatment in atrophic maxillary ridges. If favorable, the use of short implants may avoid adjunct procedures used for implant insertion, thus reducing operative time, complexity and postoperative discomfort.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02350075 (registered on 17 February 2015).