EAO Supplement Working Group 4 – EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review

Abstract

The outcomes of the survey analyses demonstrated predictably high implant survival rates for short implants and longer implants placed in augmented sinus and their respective reconstructions. Given the higher number of biological complications, increased morbidity, costs and surgical time of longer dental implants in the augmented sinus, shorter dental implants may represent the preferred treatment alternative.

Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: Three‐year results of a randomized clinical study

“…There is no agreement on the definition of a SI: some authors consider an implant as short when its length is inferior to 10 mm, 36,37 whereas for others implant length must be inferior or equal to 8 mm. 3,13,14,16 In the present randomized clinical study implants long between 8.5 and 6.5 mm were considered short and implants with a length superior or equal to 10 mm as standard.…”

“…High implant and prosthesis survival rates for both short implants (SIs) and standard length implants in association with sinus lift were reported in several medium-short term clinical studies [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and systematic reviews. [12][13][14][15][16] In addition, no statistical differences were reported for marginal bone loss. [13][14][15] However, SA is a more complex therapeutic option than SIs, generally associated to a higher total treatment time and cost, 17 a greater postoperative morbidity, and also a higher risks of complications.…”

“…[12][13][14][15][16] In addition, no statistical differences were reported for marginal bone loss. [13][14][15] However, SA is a more complex therapeutic option than SIs, generally associated to a higher total treatment time and cost, 17 a greater postoperative morbidity, and also a higher risks of complications. 1,14,16 The use of platelet concentrates in oral surgery may represent a valuable tool due to the action of growth factors and various proactive components released from platelet granules upon activation.…”

“…[13][14][15] However, SA is a more complex therapeutic option than SIs, generally associated to a higher total treatment time and cost, 17 a greater postoperative morbidity, and also a higher risks of complications. 1,14,16 The use of platelet concentrates in oral surgery may represent a valuable tool due to the action of growth factors and various proactive components released from platelet granules upon activation. 18,19 Favorable actions of platelet concentrates have been reported in many studies, however their efficacy in some clinical applications is still controversial due to the paucity of convincing evidence, as highlighted by some systematic reviews of the literature.…”

Evaluation of survival of implants placed simultaneously with sinus floor elevation operation at different residual bone height

“…24 Çalışmalarda konik ve agresif özellikli yivlere sahip implantların düşük kemik yoğunluğunda ve miktarında, silindir ve silik yivlere sahip implantlara göre yerleştirme torklarının daha yüksek olduğu belirtilmektedir. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Yerleştirilen implantın iyileşme süresince stabilizasyonunun korunması, osseointegrasyonun sağlanması ve yükleme sonrasında korunmasında en önemli başarı faktörü olarak görülmektedir. 32 İmplant sağkalım oranı bakımından gruplar arasında fark görülmemesinin diğer bir nedeni olarak da hasta seçim kriterleri gösterilebilir.…”