Short and ultra‐short (<6‐mm) locking‐taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior areas (part II): A 5‐year retrospective study on periodontally healthy patients and patients with a history of periodontitis

Abstract

Background Short and ultra‐short implants implants supporting single crowns seem to demonstrate high percentages of survival and stable marginal bone levels at a mid‐term follow‐up. Nevertheless, insurgence of peri‐implant complications still represents a critical issue, especially for patients with history of periodontitis. Purpose The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate implant survival, marginal bone loss and peri‐implant complications in 333 short and ultra‐short implants, placed in periodontally healthy patients and patients with a history of periodontitis. Materials and Methods Implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions of 142 patients with (PP) and without (NPP) a history of periodontitis. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 5‐year recall appointments. Results Implants respectively placed in PP and NPP were: 35.68% and 42.50% in 8.0 mm‐length group, 33.33% and 36.67% in 6.0 mm‐length group, and 30.99% and 20.83% in 5.0 mm‐length group. Implant‐based survival after 5 years of follow‐up was 95.77% for PP and 96.67% for NPP (p = 0.77). Regarding crestal bone level variations, average crestal bone loss was statistically different (p = 0.04) among PP (0.74 mm) and NPP (0.61 mm). Implants presenting signs of mucositis were 6.86% in PP and 7.76% in NPP (p = 0.76). Setting the threshold for excessive bone loss at 1 mm after 60 months, peri‐implantitis prevalence was 7.84% in PP and 2.59% in NPP (p = 0.08). Overall implant success was 92.16% and 97.41%, respectively, for PP and NPP. Conclusions Under strict maintenance program, five‐year outcomes suggest that short and ultra‐short locking‐taper implants can be successfully restored with single crowns in the posterior jaws both in PP and NPP.

Implant rehabilitation of a posterior maxilla with 4‐mm long implants splinted to a 10‐mm long implant in a patient with osteopenia taking antiresorptive drugs: A 5‐year follow‐up case report

“…Several recent studies have investigated the possibility of rehabilitating shortened maxillary arches with extra‐short implants, finding them to exhibit lower costs, shorter recovery times, minimal invasiveness, and promising med‐term results in cases of single crowns 15 , 16 , 17 as well as splinted crowns in partially edentulous maxillae with gaps between the premolar and distal molar. 18 , 19 Similarly, our recent case series yielded excellent 3‐year survival and success rates of splinted crowns supported by one or two extra‐short 4‐mm dental implants and one standard 10‐mm dental implant in shortened maxillary arches, despite the fact that more than half of the treated patients presented with concomitant systemic illnesses, which could potentially compromise implant survival.…”

“… 12 In the present case study, the crown‐to‐implant ratio was more than 1:2 at the sites of the two extra‐short implants, yet no technical complications were found even at the 5‐year follow‐up visit, most probably because we were very careful when adjusting the occlusal contacts, ensuring disclusion during lateropulsion. Even though the number of case series showing favorable results of 4‐mm implants is on the rise, 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 no RCT has been performed to directly compare the effectiveness and success rates of sinus lifts versus extra‐short implants.…”

From Freehand to Precision: Dynamic Navigation Systems in Transmandibular Nerve Canal Implantation - A Case Series

“…Similar to patient#1, simulated implant placement at site #47 using CBCT software suggested the feasibility of crossing the nerve canal. Considering the remaining alveolar height of ≥7mm at site #37, which is suitable for ultra-short implants, an ultra-short implant is planned for this site [9]. To ensure precision and safety throughout the procedure, the entire surgical plan involves implant placement guided by DNS.…”

Prefabricated shouldered abutments enable successful restoration of molar crowns on implants

“…Such universal prefabricated shouldered abutments allow the restoration of a variety of challenging scenarios, ranging from single crowns, FDPs, to full-arch prostheses. [8][9][10][11] They also included a hemispherical base, which has been shown to promote bone gain. 12 Despite the merits of the abutment design, the efficacy of these abutments has not been evaluated systematically prior to this study.…”

“…Another advancement in abutment design introduced a universal geometry of the cementation surface with available variations in angles and post lengths (so‐called Universal abutments). Such universal prefabricated shouldered abutments allow the restoration of a variety of challenging scenarios, ranging from single crowns, FDPs, to full‐arch prostheses 8–11 . They also included a hemispherical base, which has been shown to promote bone gain 12 .…”