Short implants: A systematic review

Karthikeyan, I; Desai, Shrikar R.; Singh, Rika

doi:10.4103/0972-124x.100901

Cited by 35 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21,22,23 Many studies report the use short implants (≤ 10 mm) with a considerable success, however the literature regarding survival rate of ≤ 7 mm is sparse. 13 Despite this, a recent systematic review affirms that implants shorter than 7 mm can be placed successfully, in mandibular or maxilla. The majority of the studies included in this review associate short and wide implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few studies were found to evaluate the effectiveness of extra-short implants. 7,13,30 In a systematic review, Annibali et al 21 reported that the biomechanical rationale behind the use of short implants is that high stress values occur in the crestal portion, whereas very little stress is transferred to the apical region. This finding is in accord with that observed in the present study, considering the implant A (load side).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5,6,7,8,9,10 Initially, short implants had a standard diameter (3.75 mm), received no surface treatment, and present preponderant failures rates. 11,12,13 Recent studies have shown positive results for short implants 1,8,14,15,16 even for those shorter than 7 mm in length. 7,8,9,17 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 Systematic reviews also reported that short implants can be placed successfully in the partially edentulous patient. 13,20,21,22,23 Implants shorter than 10 mm are sufficient to support occlusal forces without undesirable crestal bone resorption, even when restored with an unsplinted single-crown. 8 Currently the increasing survival rates of the short implants are associated with improvement in the surface of implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Short implants to support mandibular complete dentures - photoelastic analysis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the stress behavior around short implants in edentulous atrophic mandibles. Six groups included implants with two diameters regular and wide (4 and 5 mm) and three lengths (5, 7 and 9 mm) as follows: Ci9 (9 x 4 mm), Ci7 (7 x 4 mm), Ci5 (5 x 4 mm), Wi9 (9 x 5 mm), Wi7 (7 x 5 mm) and Wi5 (5 x 5 mm). These groups were compared to the control group CG (11 x 4 mm). The analysis was performed with the photoelastic method (n = 6). Each model comprised 4 implants with the same length and diameter connected by a chromium-cobalt bar that simulates a fixed denture. A 0.15 kg force was applied at the end of the cantilever (15 mm), and the maximum shear stress was recorded around the distal and subsequent implants. The stress values were determined, and the quantitative data (Fringes ® ) were submitted to statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA and the Dunnett test (p < 0.05). It was observed that the reduction in implant length increased stress values with a significant difference (p < 0.05) between CG Ci7 and Ci5, while the increase in implant diameter reduced the stress values without any differences found between short and long implants. Implants with 5 and 7 mm with regular diameter increased stress levels while short implants with larger diameters experienced similar stress to that of longer implants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Short implants to support mandibular complete dentures - photoelastic analysis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Short implants with wide diameter may increase survival rates (2); additionally, it is more acceptable than surgical placement of bone grafts in the posterior jaw (3). However, there is concern regarding the longevity of these implants from a biomechanical perspective (4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Varying Diameter and Connection Type in Implants with High Crown-Implant Ratio

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of varying the diameter, connection type and loading on stress distribution in the cortical bone for implants with a high crownimplant ratio. Six 3D models were simulated with the InVesalius, Rhinoceros 3D 4.0 and SolidWorks 2011 software programs. Models were composed of bone from the posterior mandibular region; they included an implant of 8.5 mm length, diameter Ø 3.75 mm or Ø 5.00 mm and connection types such as external hexagon (EH), internal hexagon (IH) and Morse taper (MT). Models were processed using the Femap 11.2 and NeiNastran 11.0 programs and by using an axial force of 200 N and oblique force of 100 N. Results were recorded in terms of the maximum principal stress. Oblique loading showed high stress in the cortical bone compared to that shown by axial loading. The results showed that implants with a wide diameter showed more favorable stress distribution in the cortical bone region than regular diameter, regardless of the connection type. Morse taper implants showed better stress distribution compared to other connection types, especially in the oblique loading. Thus, oblique loading showed higher stress concentration in cortical bone tissue when compared with axial loading. Wide diameter implant was favorable for improved stress distribution in the cortical bone region, while Morse taper implants showed lower stress concentration than other connections.

show abstract

Probing combinational influence of design variables on bone biomechanical response around dental implant‐supported fixed prosthesis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to understand the effect of physiological and dental implant-related parameter variations on the osseointegration for an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Eight design factors were considered (implant shape, diameter, and length; thread pitch, depth, and profile; cantilever [CL] length and implant-loading protocol). Total 36 implantation scenarios were simulated using finite element method based on Taguchi L 36 orthogonal array. Three patient-specific bone conditions were also simulated by scaling the density and Young's modulus of a mandible sample to mimic weak, normal, and strong bones. Taguchi method was employed to determine the significance of each design factor in controlling the peri-implant cortical bone microstrain. For normal bone condition, CL length had the maximum contribution (28%) followed by implant diameter (18%), thread pitch (14%), implant length (8%), and thread profile (5%). For strong bone condition, CL and implant diameter had equal contribution (32%) followed by thread pitch (7%) and implant length (5%). For weak bone condition, implant diameter had the highest contribution (31%) followed by CL length (30%), thread pitch (11%) and implant length (8%). The presence of distal CL in dental framework was found to be the most influential design factor, which can cause high strain in the cervical cortical bone. It was seen that implant diameter had more effect compared to implant length toward peri-implant bone biomechanical response. Implant-loading time had no significant effect towards peri-implant bone biomechanical response, signifying immediate loading is possible with sufficient mechanical retention.

show abstract

Short implants: A systematic review

Cited by 35 publications

References 20 publications

Short implants to support mandibular complete dentures - photoelastic analysis

Short implants to support mandibular complete dentures - photoelastic analysis

Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Varying Diameter and Connection Type in Implants with High Crown-Implant Ratio

Probing combinational influence of design variables on bone biomechanical response around dental implant‐supported fixed prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About