Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates

Abstract

When surgical preparation is related to bone density, textured-surfaced implants are employed, operators' surgical skills are developed, and indications for implant treatment duly considered, the survival rates for short and for wide-diameter implants has been found to be comparable with those obtained with longer implants and those of a standard diameter. The use of a short or wide implant may be considered in sites thought unfavourable for implant success, such as those associated with bone resorption or previous injury and trauma. While in these situations implant failure rates may be increased, outcomes should be compared with those associated with advanced surgical procedure such as bone grafting, sinus lifting, and the transposition of the alveolar nerve.

Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review

“…Implants of <10 mm in length have been considered as short implants (Pommer et al., 2011; Telleman et al., 2011). However, short implants have also been defined as equal or <8 mm in length (Renouard, & Nisand, 2006). Promising results have been recently showed in systematic reviews looking only at implants 6 mm or less in length (Srinivasan et al., 2014).…”

Short implants to support mandibular complete dentures - photoelastic analysis

“…The reduction in the shear stress values when the increased diameter was associated, confirm that the contact area between bone-implant is relevant to improve the mechanical behaviour. 25 However, the reduction in length did not result in statistical differences between short and long implants. A clinical retrospective study affirms that factors involving the survival rates seem to be independent of the implant length, and the prognosis of short implants is consistent to partial and single-crowns.…”

“…The bone quality can influence the survival rates. 1 It was not considered in this study, however concern that the bone type seems similar to long implants, short implants had a better prognosis in the mandible, 20 as well in the bone type I -III 8 witch specially caution to bone type IV, 25,37 that is no frequently observed in mandible.…”

“…The majority of the studies included in this review associate short and wide implants. 13 Previous biomechanical test showed that an increase of the implant diameter resulted in more homogeneous stress distribution and less stress concentration on the implants, 27 besides minimize complications, 25,26 and might guarantee the conservation of marginal peri-implant bone level. 34 Short-wide implants provides an increased implant-bone contact area and could make a short implant comparable to a longer implant with a smaller diameter.…”

“…The cumulative success of rough-surface implants is greater than that of machined-surface implants, especially for short implants. 21,23,24 Moreover, the increase in the diameter of implants could help minimize complications 12,25,26 since a large implant diameter might result in more homogeneous stress distribution and less stress concentration on the implants. 27 Most studies with short implants involve partially edentulous patients or those who require a single tooth replacement.…”