Short implant in limited bone volume

Nisand, David; Renouard, Franck

doi:10.1111/prd.12053

Cited by 121 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be due to the poor bone quality in which some of the implants were placed. Some authors suggest that lower quality of bone is associated with a higher failure rate [31] which is true in areas like the posterior maxilla or augmented bone [32,33] so it would be expectable that the results of this SR presented higher failure rates when comparing to standard implants placed in native bone. However, two recently published meta-analysis reported annual failure rates between 2 and 3% [34,35] that are well within the values obtained in this systematic review for short implants and standard implants in augmented bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to compare the survival rates between short implants (length < 10 mm) versus standard-length implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted in grafted bone. As secondary outcomes, marginal bone loss and survival rates of the implant supported prostheses were also analysed. Materials and methods Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared both techniques were searched on three electronic databases till June 2016, a manual search was performed on the bibliography of the collected articles, and the authors were contacted for additional references. The estimates of the interventions were expressed in relative risk (RR), mean implant survival rates and mean differences in marginal bone. Results Eight RCTs were included in this study. From a total of 458 short implants, 15 failed (mean survival rates = 96.7%), While from 488 regular implants, 13 failed (mean survival rates = 97.3%). The technique did not significantly affect: the implant failure rate (P > 0.05), with RR of 1.34 (95% CI 0.67-2.87), the mean differences of marginal bone loss (P = 0.18; MD − 0.04 mm [− 0.10; 0.02] 95% CI), at loading or prosthesis failures rates (RR:0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.41). The mean differences of marginal bone at 1 year follow-up (post loading) presented significant marginal changes in the short implant group (P = 0.002; MD − 0.10 mm [− 0.16; − 0.03] 95% CI) although a significant high heterogeneity was found between groups. Conclusions This systematic review suggests no difference between both techniques in the treatment of atrophic arches. However, more long-term RCTs are needed to evaluate the predictability at the long run. Clinical relevance The use of short implants might be considered an alternative treatment, since it usually requires fewer surgical phases and tends to be a more affordable option.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among these, the placement of implants of reduced length (4-8.5 mm) represents a less complex surgery, with a reduced cost and morbidity, overall treatment time and high implant survival rate. 3,4 Currently, there is no evidence of superiority of one technique over the other. 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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Taschieri

Lolato

Testori

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Several treatment options exist for the implant-supported rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla.Purpose: To compare maxillary sinus floor augmentation associated to standard length implants, with direct placement of implants of reduced length in the available residual bone. Materials and Methods:Patients with edentulous posterior maxilla and a residual height of 4-7 mm were randomly allocated to the test (short implants [SIs], 6.5 to 8.5mm long) or the control (sinus augmentation [SA] and implants 10mm long) group. Anorganic bovine bone was the grafting material for the control group. In both groups pure platelet-rich plasma was used to bioactivate implant surface prior to insertion. Implant and prosthesis survival, clinical variables, radiographic bone level change, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were assessed.Results: Twenty-five patients were treated in the control group (58 standard length implants) and 27 in the test group (42 SIs). After 3 years of follow-up no implant failure and biological or mechanical complications were recorded. Marginal bone loss, soft tissue, and oral hygiene parameters were similar in the 2 groups at both 1 and 3 years' follow-up. Postoperative pain, swelling and other symptoms and daily activities were better in the SIs group than in the SA group, while patients' satisfaction after 1 year was similar.Conclusions: In spite of comparable medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, when the residual ridge height is sufficient for a safe placement, SIs may be preferred due to simplified protocol, less invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced postoperative discomfort as compared to SA.

show abstract

“…1 This solution represents an alternative to more invasive surgeries such as bone grafting, guided bone regeneration, distraction osteogenesis or lateralization of the alveolar nerve. 2,3 The definition of short implants is still non -consensual among authors. Some consider a short implant when its length is shorter than 10 mm, 1,4,5 while other authors propose 8 mm as the maximal length to define a short implant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A similar behaviour was found by Himmlová et al 24 Although not considered statistically significant, the resonance frequency analysis performed by Calvo -Guirado et al 25 showed that the ISQ values for short implants were lower than those found for longer implants. Nisand et al, 3 explained the possible failure of short implants with a reduced implant primary stability, bone -to -implant contact, as well as an unfa-vourable crown -to -implant ratio. Biomechanical studies highlight the danger represented by the bending loads either for short implants, once they have a smaller area to dissipate tensions, 2,26 or for cortical bone because its yield strength is lower when the load is acting on a perpendicular direction to its major axis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and validation of a short-implant rehabilitation model

Ferreira¹,

Oliveira²,

Castellanos³

et al. 2017

j.rpemd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This research intended to develop and validate a digital model that could be used to study the stresses and strains created in the different components involved in oral fixed rehabilitations with short implants. The validated model was then used to simulate a clinical-like situation.Methods: A digital model was created considering the posterior areas of the mandible. Its materialization obtained ten specimens of the experimental prototype. Seven of them were static compressive tested until failure and, for the other three, the tests were progressively interrupted, to allow the establishment of a damage sequence. On the numerical model a finite element analysis was performed with Abaqus software, under similar conditions to the experimental situation. Results:The stress pattern on the FEA and the failure location on the static test were similar.The sequence in which each part reached the yield strength was the same as that observed on the interrupted static test (resin, prosthetic framework, implants and implant screws, in this order). Due to these results, the model was considered valid. A clinical-like simulation with the validated model showed that buccal cortical bone, around the implants platform, is the weakest part of such a rehabilitation.Conclusions: This research allowed the development and validation of a computer-aided design model that can be used to study an oral fixed rehabilitation supported by short im- Conclusões: Esta investigação permitiu o desenvolvimento e a validação de um modelo que permite o estudo de reabilitações fixas sobre implantes curtos. Clinicamente é importante realçar que o osso cortical é a zona que apresenta tensões e deformações mais elevadas.

show abstract

Short implant in limited bone volume

Cited by 121 publications

References 81 publications

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

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

Design and validation of a short-implant rehabilitation model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About