Short implants versus longer implants in the posterior alveolar region after an observation period of at least five years: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Evaluating the Feasibility of Short Dental Implants as Alternatives to Long Dental Implants in Mandibular Bone: A Finite Element Study

This study uses finite element analysis to investigate the potential application of shorter dental implants as a substitute for longer implants in the lower jaw (mandible). FEA allows the evaluation of the stress patterns around the implant-bone interface, a critical factor for successful osseointegration. Ten models were generated, encompassing five long (L1-L5) and five short implant models (S1-S5) with variations in diameter and length. Hypermesh software was utilized to meticulously prepare the FEA models, ensuring accurate mesh generation. The FEA simulations were conducted under four distinct loading scenarios (100 N occlusal load, 40 N lateral load, 100 N oblique at 30°, and 100 N oblique at 45°) to realistically mimic the forces exerted during biting, using an ABAQUS CAE solver. The results revealed that the von Mises stress generated within the short implant models was demonstrably lower compared to their long implants. Additionally, a significant drop in stress was observed with increasing the diameter of the short implants, to a certain diameter range. These findings suggest the potential for successful substitution of long implant model L4 with short implant model S4 due to the demonstrably lower stress values achieved. Furthermore, the data indicates the possibility of utilizing short implant models S3 and S5 as alternatives to long implant models L3 and L5, respectively. These observations hold significant promise for evaluating the feasibility of replacing long implants with shorter variants, potentially leading to a reduction in implant-related failures.

Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10-mm dental implants in different clinical scenarios: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and quality of evidence grading

AIM

To systematically identify, synthesize and critically summarize the available scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding whether short (≤6 mm) perform as well as long (≥10 mm) implants regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complications in different clinical scenarios.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were applied. Results were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses assessed by trial sequential analyses.

RESULTS

Forty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included. Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5-year survival rates for ≤6-mm and ≥10-mm implants in non-augmented bone and full-mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6-mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift. Nevertheless, the evidence for 5-year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4-mm and 5-mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants. Marginal bone level and short- and long-term biologic or prosthetic complications were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate/high certainty/quality evidence from 5-year RCTs, implants ≤6 mm may be viable alternatives to ≥10-mm implants in either jaw in native bone and full-arch rehabilitation, and 6-mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.

Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior mandible with additively manufactured custom-made subperiosteal implants: a cohort study

The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyse a series of patients with posterior mandibular atrophy rehabilitated with custom-made subperiosteal implants. The study included patients with severe posterior mandibular atrophy who had undergone rehabilitation with subperiosteal implants between September 2018 and August 2022 in the Maxillofacial Surgery Operative Unit of the University Hospital of Sassari. Complications and the success rate were reviewed. Data from 30 implants placed in 17 patients were included and analysed. There were no major complications during the surgeries. The main postoperative sequela was oedema, which was reported as moderate by most patients and had completely regressed within 10 days of surgery. No partial or complete exposures, infections, or loss of the implants were detected during follow-up (average follow-up 22.5 months). Control computed tomography scans, performed at 6 months and then annually in all cases, did not show significant bone loss below the abutments, displacement of the implants, or loss or loosening of the osteosynthesis screws. Subperiosteal implants may represent a safe and reliable technique for the rehabilitation of severe atrophy of the posterior mandible. Prospective studies with a long follow-up will be needed to establish the long-term results of this type of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation.

[Teeth autotransplantation as an alternative to dental implantation]

The stages of preoperative planning and surgical treatment of compromised teeth by the method of autotransplantation of a tooth are presented on the example of two clinical cases. The autotransplantation method can be considered an alternative to dental implantation when strictly adhering to the surgical protocol and careful selection of patients.

Short implants compared to regular dental implants after bone augmentation in the atrophic posterior mandible: umbrella review and meta-analysis of success outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess the body of evidence of short versus regular implants after bone augmentation (BA) in the atrophic posterior mandible in the context of implant treatment success outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases, two registries, and reference lists were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR/MA), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies published in English, Spanish or German since 2012. Confidence in the SR/MA methodology was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 and the risk of bias of primary studies using Cochrane's RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. A random-effects meta-analysis and a meta-regression were performed for continuous and dichotomous outcomes. GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Eighteen SRs/MAs, most of them "critically low" and "low" confidence with substantial overlap, included 14 relevant RCTs with a high risk of bias. A cohort study with moderate risk of bias was added. Quantitative synthesis of 595 implants and 281 hemiarches/patients indicates that the use of short implants (< 10 mm) compared to regular implants and BA may reduce implant failure at 1-year follow-up, and marginal bone loss (MBL) at 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; is likely to reduce the risk of biological complications at 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; and may be the patient's preferred alternative. There is a correlation between bone height, MBL and biological complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence partially suggests that the use of short implants could decrease implant failure, MBL, and biological complications, and increase patient satisfaction. However, given the need for further RCTs and real-world evidence to fully evaluate short- and long-term outcomes, it would be prudent for clinicians to carefully consider the individual needs and circumstances of the patients before deciding whether to use short implants. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022333526.

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of using short implants (≤ 8 mm) inserted with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted with sinus floor elevation (SFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae with insufficient residual bone height (RBH).

Methods

An electronic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1994 to July 2022, in combination with a manual search of references in relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical results between short and standard implant placement with SFE were included. The primary outcomes were implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL); the secondary outcome was complication rate.

Results

Three RCTs were included, totaling 138 short and 156 standard implants. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the short and standard implant groups in survival rate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI   0.96–1.08, p = 0.570), MBL (MD = − 0.13, 95% CI   − 0.32 to 0.07, p = 0.190) and complication rate (intra-surgical complication: RR = 1.14, 95% CI   0.46–2.83, p = 0.770; post-operative complication: RR = 1.34, 95% CI   0.71–2.55, p = 0.370).

Conclusions

Using short implants (≤ 8 mm) combined with OSFE might be an alternative to standard implants (≥ 10 mm) with SFE when the RBH of the posterior maxilla is insufficient. Based on a short-term clinical observation, short implants with OSFE show good results in terms of survival rate, MBL, and complication incidence.

Graphical Abstract

Bone quality effect on short implants in the edentulous mandible: a finite element study

Introduction

The aim of this study was to verify whether the use of short implants could optimize stress distribution of bone surrounding implants in atrophic mandibles with different bone qualities.

Methods

A three-dimensional model of the atrophic mandible with three levels of bone quality was made using computer software. Short implants (6 mm) and standard implants (10 mm) were used in four designs: Design 1 "All-On four", Design 2 "All-On-four" with two short implants, Design 3 four vertical implants with two short implants, and Design 4 six short implants. The distal short implants were placed at the first molar position. All twelve models were imported into finite element analysis software, and 110 N oblique force was loaded on the left second premolar. Maximum principal stress values of peri-implant bone and the volumes of bone with over 3000 microstrians (overload)were analyzed.

Result

Stress values and volumes of overload bone increased in all four groups with the decline of bone quality. The highest stress values were found in the cortical bone surrounding the Design 1 inclined implant in two lower bone quality mandibles, and the lowest in Design 3. However, Design 1 had less overload bone tissue than all three designs with short implants.

Conclusion

Short implants placed posteriorly helped decrease stress values in peri-implant bone, while bone surrounding short implants had a high resorption risk in low bone quality mandible.

Short vs. regular length implants to rehabilitate partially edentulous mandible: a 2-year prospective split-mouth clinical study

Many studies have evaluated short implants (SIs); however, it is still unclear whether SIs are reliable and can be used to simplify surgical and prosthetic protocols with successful clinical outcomes. The aim of this non-random, conveniently sampled, prospective, split-mouth study was to compare the clinical outcomes when short (SI) (≤8 mm) or regular-length implants (RIs) (>10 mm) were used in the posterior mandible two years after the delivery of splinted reconstructions. Each participant (N=10) received four implants in the posterior mandible; two SIs were placed on one side, and two RIs were placed contra-laterally. Implants were restored with splinted, screw-retained, porcelain-fused-to-metal reconstructions. Survival and success rates, peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL), and soft tissue parameters were evaluated. No participant drop-outs were recorded. Both types of implants showed 100% success and survival rates. From prosthetic delivery to 24 months post-loading, bone remineralization of +0.40 mm for the SIs and +0.36 mm for the RIs was observed without statistically significant differences in MBL between the implant types (p=0.993). SIs showed significantly higher (p=0.001) clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing depth (PD) values. Chipping occurred in one situation in the RI group resulting in a 97.5% prosthetic success rate, which was 100% for the SIs. After 2 years, SIs with splinted reconstructions showed comparable clinical outcomes to those of RIs. Further long-term controlled clinical studies with balanced experimental designs evaluating random and larger populations are required to corroborate these findings.

Ultra-short versus standard-length dental implants in conjunction with osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The ability to restore missing teeth with dental implants is dictated by the available bone and by the presence of anatomical structures. The potential to insert ultrashort implants avoids additional surgical procedures and its inherent complications. The last European Association of Dental Implantologists consensus in 2016 defined ultrashort implants and standard-length dental implants as <6 and >8 mm, respectively.

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to investigate whether single standing ultrashort dental implants (US) could provide a viable therapeutic alternative to osteotome mediated sinus floor elevation in combination with standard-length dental implants (SL) 10 mm in posterior maxillary rehabilitation with reduced bone height.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted as a prospective parallel group controlled clinical trial with a 12 month follow-up, where 48 implants were randomized into two groups; US-group (5.5 mm) and SL-group (10 mm) implants placed with osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation. Crestal bone loss (CBL) was defined as the study's primary outcome, while implant survival, buccal bone thickness, implant stability, probing depth, gingival recession, and adverse effects were assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Mesial CBL was 1.13 ± 0.52 mm in SL- and 0.72 ± 0.52 mm in US-group (P = .021), while distal CBL was 1.44 ± 0.72 mm in SL- and 0.91 ± 0.69 mm in US-group at 12 months (P = .0179). Regarding implant stability, probing depth, and gingival recession there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Regarding implants' survival, three implants were lost in the US-while only one implant was lost in the SL-group (P = .6085; Fisher's exact test). Nevertheless, the ultrashort implants were associated with a tripling of the failure rate and uncertainty where the true failure rate is uncertain (relative risk 3.0; confidence interval 0.3-26.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the current trial's limitations, US-appear appear promising as they are associated less postoperative discomfort, minimal invasiveness and less CBL. However, larger sample size is required to determine whether the ultrashort have an acceptable survival rate.

Different Treatment Modalities Using Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis

The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical behavior of peri-implant bone tissue and prosthetic components in two modalities of treatment for posterior region of the maxilla, using short implants or standard-length implants associated with bone graft in the maxillary sinus. Four 3D models of a crown supported by an implant fixed in the posterior maxilla were constructed. The type of implant: short implant (S) or standard-length implant with the presence of sinus graft (L) and type of crown retention: cemented (C) or screwed (S) were the study factors. The models were divided into SC- cemented crown on a short implant; SS- screwed crown on the short implant; LC- cemented crown on a standard-length implant after bone graft in the maxillary sinus and LS- crown screwed on a standard-length implant after bone graft in the maxillary sinus. An axial occlusal loading of 300 N was applied, divided into five points (60N each) corresponding to occlusal contact. The following analysis criteria were observed: Shear Stress, Maximum and Minimum Main Stress for bone tissue and von Mises Stress for the implant and prosthetic components. The use of standard-length implants reduced the shear stress in the cortical bone by 35.75% and the medullary bone by 51% when compared to short implants. The length of the implant did not affect the stress concentration in the crown, and the cement layer acted by reducing the stresses in the ceramic veneer and framework by 42%. Standard-implants associated with cemented crowns showed better biomechanical behavior.