Influence of short implants geometry on primary stability

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.

Socket Preservation Using Xenograft Does Not Impair Implant Primary Stability in Sheep: Clinical, Histological, and Histomorphometric Study

Implant primary stability, which depends mainly on the amount and quality of bone, is important for implant survival. Socket preservation aims to reduce bone volumetric changes after tooth extraction. This animal study aims to examine whether preserving a ridge by using xenograft impairs the primary stability of the implant. Eighteen artificial bone defects were prepared in 4 sheep (5- and 8-mm length). Defects were randomly grafted with xenografts: Bio-Oss (BO), Bio-Active bone (BB), or left for natural healing (control). After 8 weeks, bone biopsy was harvested and dental implants installed. During installation, peak insertion torque (IT) was measured by hand ratchet, and primary stability by the Osstell method. Histomorphometric analysis showed a higher percentage of new bone formation in the naturally healed defects compared to sites with xenograft (control: 68.66 ± 4.5%, BB: 48.75 ± 4.34%, BO: 50.33 ± 4.0%). Connective tissue portion was higher in the BO and BB groups compared to control (44.25 ± 2.98%, 41 ± 6%, and 31.33 ± 4.5%, P < .05, respectively). Residual grafting material was similar in BO and BB (7 ± 2.44%, 8.66 ± 2.1%, respectively). Mean IT and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were not statistically different among the groups. A positive correlation was found between IT and ISQ (r = 0.65, P = 0). In conclusion, previously grafted defects with xenograft did not influence primary stability and implant insertion torque in delayed implant placement. These results may be attributed to a relatively high bone fill of the defect (∼50%) 2 months after grafting.

Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial

Objective

The aim of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6‐mm or 11‐mm implants, placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible, during a 5‐year follow‐up period.

Materials and methods

Ninety‐five patients with adequate bone height for 11‐mm implants, were randomly allocated to a 6‐mm group (test group with short implants) or an 11‐mm group (control group with standard‐length implants). Two or three implants of the same length were placed in each patient and after 6 weeks loaded with a splinted provisional restoration. This was followed by definitive splinted restoration 6 months after implant placement. Clinical and radiographic parameters, including the occurrence of complications were recorded.

Results

A total of 49 patients were enrolled to receive 6‐mm implants (n = 108) and 46 patients to receive 11‐mm implants (n = 101). Three implants (two of 6 mm and one of 11 mm in length) were lost before loading and one 6‐mm implant after 15 months of function, and one 11‐mm implant was lost during the first year of function. The 5‐year survival rates were 96.0% and 98.9% in the 6‐mm and 11‐mm group, respectively. The mean marginal bone level changes 5 years post‐loading were 0.01 ± 0.45 mm (bone gain) in the 6‐mm group and −0.12 ± 0.93 mm (bone loss) in the 11‐mm group (p = .7670). Clinical parameters, including plaque, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth were not significantly different between the groups, and also technical complications were low.

Conclusion

The clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6‐mm short and 11‐mm standard‐length implants were not different during a 5‐year evaluation period.

Clinical Performance of Short Expandable Dental Implants for Oral Rehabilitation in Highly Atrophic Alveolar Bone: 3-year Results of a Prospective Single-Center Cohort Study

Background and Objectives: Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL) is compromised during the post-implant healing period, especially when vertical augmentation is required. A long-term trial sought to evaluate a short dental implant system with an apically expandable macro-design. Materials and Methods: Over 4.5 years, patients with limited vertical alveolar bone were consecutively recruited into this prospective cohort study. Implant success rate, OHRQOL (Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14), implant stability, and crestal bone changes were evaluated. Results: Data from 30 patients (mean age: 64.6 years, range 44–83) were analyzed, which related to 104 implants (53 in the maxilla, 51 in the mandible). Over the mean follow-up (42.6 ± 16.4 months), the implant success rate was 94.7% in the mandible (two implants lost) and 83.6% in the maxilla (four implants lost; p = 0.096), and the prosthetic success rate was 100%. The median OHIP-14 scores improved from 23 (interquartile range (IQR) 9–25.5) to 2 (IQR 0–5; p < 0.001). The mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) was 71.2 ± 10.6 for primary stability and 73.7 ± 13.3 (p = 0.213) for secondary stability, without significant maxilla-versus-mandible differences (p ≥ 0.066). Compared to the baseline, median crestal bone changes after loading were 1.0 mm (IQR 0–1.3) and 1.0 mm (IQR 0.2–1.2) in the maxilla and mandible (p = 0.508), respectively, at the end of the first year, 1.1 mm (IQR 0–1.3) and 1.0 mm (IQR 0.1–1.2) (p = 0.382), respectively, at the end of the second year, and 1.2 mm (IQR 0–1.9) and 1.1 mm (IQR 0.1–1.2) (p = 0.304), respectively, at the end of the third year. Conclusions: In patients with limited vertical bone height, short implants with optimized macro-design constitute a reliable method for functional rehabilitation, avoiding extensive alveolar bone augmentation.