A Retrospective Multicenter Study on Short Implants With a Laser-Microgrooved Collar (≤7.5 mm) in Posterior Edentulous Areas: Radiographic and Clinical Results up to 3 to 5 Years

Survival Rates of Splinted and Nonsplinted Prostheses Supported by Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, and mechanical complications of prostheses supported by splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic database (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and EMBASE) and manual searches up to May 2021 were conducted to identify studies comparing splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm). The primary outcome was implant survival rate. Secondary outcomes were marginal bone loss and mechanical complications. The quality of included studies and risk-of-bias were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and featured 1506 short implants (596 nonsplinted and 910 splinted) with a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 16 years. Quantitative analysis found no statistically significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) for survival rate (RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 1.01; p = 0.26)) and marginal bone loss (SMD = -0.08; 95% CI - 0.23, 0.07; p = 0.28). Veneer chipping, abutment screw breakage, screw loosening, and loss of retention were reported in the selected studies as common complications. However, no statistically significant difference was found between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.20, 1.54; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present meta-analysis, it might be concluded that splinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) do not present superior performance in survival rate, marginal bone maintenance and prevention of mechanical complications compared with single-unit prostheses.

Effect of macro-design in the primary stability of short and extra-short implants using resonance frequency analysis. An ex vivo study

Objective

This study aimed to determine the effect of macro design in the primary stability of short and extra-short implants using resonance frequency analysis (RFA).

Material and methods

On an ex-vivo model using pig's ribs, we inserted 80 short and extra-short dental implants (20 implants per brand): Biohorizons®(B) 4.6 × 6mm; Intralock®(I) 4.75 × 6.5 mm; Straumann®(S) 4.1 × 4mm; and Tixos®(T) 5 × 5mm. Primary implant stability was measured using an RFA device. We compared mean ISQ values through ANOVA test.

Results

Mean ISQ values: B = 73.36 (±3.39); I = 75.13 (±3.88); S = 65.38 (±8.38); T = 72.13 (±11). B and I showed higher ISQ than S (p-value < 0.001). Short (I) showed higher ISQ than extra-short (B,S,T) implants (p-value = 0.001). Tapered (B,I) had higher ISQ than parallel (S,T) implants (p-value < 0.001). There was a moderate positive correlation between ISQ and length (r = 0.52), and a weak correlation with diameter (r = 0.33).

Discussion

The final result is a combination of implant design, length, and diameter. Tapered design (B and I) and larger implants (I) showed better primary stability in terms of ISQ values. This information could be beneficial at implant selection in a severely reabsorbed low-quality bone, privileging length (as long as it is safe), and conical walls design.

Radiographic bone level around particular laser-treated dental implants: 1 to 6 years multicenter retrospective study

Purpose

The aim of the present retrospective study was to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes, in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and peri-implantitis incidence, of a titanium implants with an innovative laser-treated surface.

Materials and methods

A total of 502 dental implants were inserted in four dental practices (Udine, Arezzo, Frascati, Roma) between 2008 and 2013. All inserted implants had laser-modified surface characterized by a series of 20-μm-diameter holes (7–10 μm deep) every 10 μm (Synthegra®, Geass srl, Italy). The minimum follow-up period was set at 1 year after the final restoration. Radiographs were taken after implant insertion (T0), at time of loading (T1), and during the follow-up period (last recall, T2). Marginal bone loss and peri-implant disease incidence were recorded.

Results

A total of 502 implants with a maximum follow-up period of 6 years were monitored. The mean differential between T0 and T2 was 0.05 ± 1.08 mm at the mesial aspect and 0.08 ± 1.11 mm at the distal with a mean follow-up period of 35.76 ± 18.05 months. After being in function for 1 to 6 years, implants reported varying behavior: 8.8% of sites did not show any radiographic changes and 38.5% of sites showed bone resorption. The bone appeared to have been growing coronally in 50.7% of the sites measured.

Conclusion

Implants showed a maintenance of marginal bone levels over time, and in many cases, it seems that laser-modified implant surface could promote a bone growth. The low peri-implant disease incidence recorded could be attributed to the laser titanium surface features that seem to prevent bacterial colonization. Future randomized and controlled studies are needed to confirm the results of the present multi-centrical retrospective analysis.