A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis on the Effect of Implant Length on the Survival of Rough‐Surface Dental Implants

Abstract

Within the limitations of this systematic review, the placement of short rough-surface implants is not a less efficacious treatment modality compared to the placement of conventional rough-surface implants for the replacement of missing teeth in either totally or partially edentulous patients.

To Graft or Not to Graft? Evidence-Based Guide to Decision Making in Oral Bone Graft Surgery

“…A tendency of short implant failures to occur within the first year of prosthetic loading has been observed (das Neves et al, 2006) and long-term effects of peri-implant bone resorption may also differ significantly and require investigation. Meta-analyses of observational studies (LoE-3) did not reveal differences between short (7-9 mm) and conventional (≥ 10 mm) rough-surfaced implants regarding their survival (Kotsovilis et al, 2009) as well as one-year success rates (Pommer et al, 2011).…”

Short Implants

“…Some of the more commonly encountered problems are the position of the inferior alveolar nerve and canal, low-lying maxillary sinuses with insufficient residual alveolar bone height, and alveolar ridge deficiencies. 4,19 In an effort to overcome these anatomic problems, advanced surgical techniques were developed. To increase the alveolar bone height, guided bone regeneration, block grafting, maxillary sinus floor grafting, and distraction osteogenesis procedures were performed.…”

“…All of these advanced surgical procedures can be challenging, technique sensitive, time consuming, and costly, and can increase surgical morbidity and prolong overall treatment time. 4,[19][20][21][22] With early disappointing results such as these, why would anyone want to continue to use short implants? The answer lies in improvements in surface technology, implant to abutment connections, a better understanding of implant to bone biomechanics using finite elemental analysis (FEA), and weighing the risks versus benefits of advanced bone augmentation procedures as opposed to using short implants.…”

Previsibilidade de implantes curtos e extrascurtos unitários em mandíbula posterior atrófica

“…Com o avanço tecnológico para confecção de superfícies tratadas e da curva de aprendizado do cirurgião-dentista, os implantes, curtos podem ser considerados uma alternativa previsível embasada na literatura científica 9,12,[21][22][23][24] . Assim, os fabricantes têm reduzido a altura dos implantes visando atender às necessidades para reabilitação em rebordos acentuadamente atróficos.…”