AIM To test whether or not the use of short dental implants (6 mm) results in an implant survival rate similar to long implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus grafting. METHODS This multicentre study enrolled 101 patients with a posterior maxillary bone height of 5-7 mm. Patients randomly received short implants (6 mm) (group short) or long implants (11-15 mm) with sinus grafting (group graft). Six months later, implants were loaded with single crowns and patients re-examined at 1 year of loading. Outcomes included treatment time, price calculations, safety, patient-reported outcome measures (OHIP-49 = Oral Health Impact Profile) and implant survival. Statistical analysis was performed using a non-parametric approach. RESULTS In 101 patients, 137 implants were placed. Mean surgical time was 52.6 min. (group short) and 74.6 min. (group graft). Mean costs amounted to 941EUR (group short) and 1946EUR (group graft). Mean severity scores between suture removal and baseline revealed a statistically significant decrease for most OHIP dimensions in group graft only. At 1 year, 97 patients with 132 implants were re-examined. The implant survival rate was 100%. CONCLUSIONS Both treatment modalities can be considered suitable for implant therapy in the atrophied posterior maxilla. Short implants may be more favourable regarding short-term patient morbidity, treatment time and price. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12323Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-107953 Accepted Version Originally published at: Thoma, Daniel S; Haas, Robert; Tutak, Marcin; Garcia, Abel; Schincaglia, Gian Pietro; Hämmerle, Christoph H F (2015). Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCEScientific rationale for the study: implant therapy in the posterior maxilla with a limited ridge height presents challenges to the clinician. At present, a sinus floor elevation procedure to increase the ridge height in combination with the placement of long dental implants is considered the gold standard. In order to overcome limitations and disadvantages associated with this procedure, the use of shorter dental implants has been proposed to avoid extensive bone augmentation surgeriesPrincipal findings: Both treatment options, sinus floor elevation with long implants and short implants rendered similar outcomes at 1 year of function with respect to implant survival rates. Treatment costs, surgical time and physical disability at the day of suture removal were lower for the group with short dental implants. Practical implications:Within the limitations of this study both treatment options can be recommended for the severely atrophied posterior maxilla. 4ABSTRACT Aim: to test whether or not the use of short dental implants (6mm) results in an implant survival rate similar to long implants (11-15mm) in combination with sinus grafti...

Both treatment modalities provided similar outcomes.

SUMMARY:The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence, location and morphology of maxillary sinus septa, and in particular sagittally orientated forms, which cannot be visualized by classic 2D x-rays. Thereby authors would like to provide information about the potential patient group, to be referred for the computed tomography scan before sinus lift procedure. The analysis was based on 216 computed tomography archival images. The exclusion criterion was occurrence of any suspected pathology in the maxillary region. The septa prevalence that was investigated in computed tomography was high (49%) with the mean height of 5.44 mm. The incidence of sagittally orientated septa as a challenge in 2D x-rays was 10%, with the second molar region as the most frequent location. Based on the obtained results and radiation safety principles, the authors suggest that orthopantomogram x-ray may be a sufficient ancillary radiological examination before beginning preimplant surgical procedure in the area of the maxillary sinus.

Surgical extraction in patients above 60 years of age is fraught with a high risk of possible complications.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of short dental implants in distally reduced alveolar bone height.Material/MethodsMedLine (PubMed and Ovid), ISI Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane databases were used for analysis. Searching was conducted using the search equation: ‘Dental Implants’ [Majr] AND (Short[TIAB] OR Shorter[TIAB]) AND (Implant[TIAB] OR Implants[TIAB]). Abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers. The articles included in the analysis were published in the English language and reported data on the use of implants with lengths below 10 mm in the posterior region with reduced alveolar bone height making the placement of longer implants impossible without additional surgical interventions. Articles concerning data on orthodontic implants and post-resection surgery reconstruction were excluded from analysis. Any disagreements between the 2 reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer. No time frame was used.ResultsOf the 791 articles initially found, automatic rejection of duplicates in the Endnotes X5 software resulted in 538 articles. After the selection of studies from databases, a bibliography of 32 eligible articles was searched for other publications. Through this method, 2 more studies were added.ConclusionsThe analysis of the results of different studies on the use of short dental implants showed that this treatment could be effective and comparable to the use of standard-length implants. This study revealed that rough-surfaced implants with lengths between 6–10 mm placed in the posterior mandible are the preferred solution. However, more detailed data will require additional prospective studies.