Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant outcomes of short dental implants placed in posterior jaws of patients with treated generalized aggressive periodontitis: A 3‐year follow‐up study

Akram, Zohaib; Vohra, Fahim; Sheikh, Saeed Ahmed; Albaijan, Refal; Bukhari, Ishfaq A.; Hussain, Mudassir

doi:10.1111/cid.12761

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among these parameters, the individual susceptibility underlying the host response to the biofilm is considered important. Our results are in line with a previous study where a significantly higher incidence of implant loss was reported in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis, compared with periodontally healthy patients (Akram et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Long‐term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA)

Lai

Qian

et al. 2022

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:To evaluate the long-term survival of short implants and to investigate the association of the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) with the occurrence of biological complications. Material and Methods:This study was designed as a cohort study with a median follow-up of 10.0 years. Patients who had received 6-mm implants were reviewed and assigned into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups (Group L, M, and H) based on the IDRA tool. The implant survival, biological complications, soft tissue condition, hardware complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL) were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were performed for survival analysis.Results: A hundred and ten patients were included. The overall cumulative survival rate was 90.9% (L:100.0%, M: 93.3%, and H: 80.6%). A higher risk profile was significantly associated with a decreased implant survival (hazard ratio: 4.11, 95% CI: 1.17-14.36, p < .05). Higher risk profile (hazard ratio: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.32-5.25, p < .05) was a potential risk factor for biological complications. At follow-up, significant differences in bleeding index, modified plaque index, and peri-implant probing depth were found among groups (p < .01). No significant difference was found in MBL. Conclusion:Acceptable long-term clinical outcomes could be achieved after 10 years for short implants. Despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in MBL, patients with a high-risk profile of IDRA seem to be at greater risk of implant loss and biological complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Long‐term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA)

Lai

Qian

et al. 2022

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The success rate of short implants could be slightly lower than, higher than, or almost equal to the standard in previous studies. [11][12][13][14][15] Searching in a wide range of literature related to risk factors, 9,16 there was no consensus. In this retrospective study, we defined short implants as implant with an introbony length less than or equal to 8.5 mm according to some previous studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

Chen

Yang

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With advanced technology, short implants are more commonly used and have proven to have a relatively reliable curable efficacy. A consensus has not been reached regarding potential risk factors related to the loss of short implants. Purpose This large‐sample retrospective study concentrated not only on patient characteristics and medical procedures but also on the features of implants in order to uncover the risk factors associated with short implants. Methods Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 7001 implants were inserted at Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University. Among the all, 1236 short implants were included after being evaluated according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In organizing the detailed information, seven variables including bone grafting procedure, age, gender, diameter of the implant, implant position, surface treatment, and definitive restorations were taken into consideration. The χ2 test, Kaplan‐Meier test, logistic regression, and multifactorial Cox regression analysis were employed to explore the risk factors. Results The cumulative survival rate of short implants was 96.36%, slightly lower than that of the standard implants (98.16%, P < .001). Most of the short implants (84.44%) were lost at the early stage, mainly because of infection. Based on the results, male gender, implants treated by titanium anodizing and single‐crown restoration increased the loss rate of short implants. Comparison of the short implants inserted into the maxillary and mandibular posterior area alone showed that the maxillary molar area was a risk factor for prognosis. Conclusions Male gender, TA surface treatment, and the presence of a single crown were associated with an increasing rate of short implants loss. Examination of the implant location focused on the posterior area revealed the maxillary posterior area to be a risk factor.

show abstract

“…Some authors indicate short implants as a predictable treatment option and a reasonable alternative to extensive regenerative procedures in patients with reduced volume of alveolar process [19,21,22]. According to Akram, short implants (< 6 mm) with 3 years of observation period were characterized by MBL of 0.42 mm in the first year of follow-up after loading, and significantly reduced to 0.14 mm in the following third year, as PD slightly reduced from 2.6 mm at the baseline to 2.4 mm at the third year of follow-up; however, CAL increased from 3.8 to 4.5 mm during this follow-up [23]. Dierens performed a retrospective study on total 50 implants and reported that 91.5% of the implants had a mean interproximal probing depth of < 5 mm with MBL at 1.7 mm after the first year of loading [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

A retrospective study of short implants with two different surfaces placed in lateral aspects of the maxilla with limited height of alveolar ridge: 36 months of follow-up

Kubasiewicz−Ross¹,

Hadzik²,

Pitułaj³

2020

jos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The problem of implant rehabilitation for maxillary atrophy is crucial. It involves the use of short implants or sinus-lift and the establishment of standard implants. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of short (6 mm long) dental implants of two different surfaces in 36 months of follow-up. Material and methods: Thirty generally healthy patients with good oral hygiene, treated with short implants (6 mm long and 4 mm in diameter) due to individual missing teeth in the lateral aspects of maxilla were qualified for the study. Patients were divided into two equal groups. The first group consisted of patients treated with sandblasted and additionally etched (SLA) implants, whereas in the second group, electrochemically hydroxyapatite-coated implants were used. Periodontal indexes such as pocket depth probing (PPD), height of keratinized gingiva (HKT), recession depth/width, and clinical attachment level were evaluated on the day of surgery and after 36 months. Additionally, the orthopantomographic X-ray was carried out in order to assess the marginal bone loss (MBL). Results: The success rate in both groups were 100%. The mean MBL was 0.34 mm for SLA and 0.33 mm for hydroxyapatite (HA) implants, with no statistically important differences. The only statistically important differences were seen in PPD and HKT parameters: 2.53 ± 0.83 mm vs. 1.47 ± 0.64 mm, and 2.27 ± 0.96 mm vs. 3.30 ± 1.08 mm for SLA and HA implants, respectively. Conclusions: Short implants can be considered as a predictable method of treatment in the lateral aspects of maxilla. There are no differences in survival rate between SLA-and HA-surfaced implants in 36 months of follow-up.

show abstract

Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant outcomes of short dental implants placed in posterior jaws of patients with treated generalized aggressive periodontitis: A 3‐year follow‐up study

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

Long‐term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA)

Long‐term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA)

Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

A retrospective study of short implants with two different surfaces placed in lateral aspects of the maxilla with limited height of alveolar ridge: 36 months of follow-up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About