Short Implants in the Severely Resorbed Maxilla: A 2‐Year Retrospective Clinical Study

Renouard, Franck; Nisand, David

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00082.x

Cited by 196 publications

(191 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

176

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…35,36 and biomechanical 15 studies have shown that the predictability of short implants is comparable with that of implants of normal length. In the present study, the success rate of short implants was found to be statistically the same as that of longer implants, as reported in another published assessment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Risk factors for implant failure: a retrospective study in an educational institution using GEE analyses

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate dental implant outcomes and to identify risk factors associated with implant failure over 12 years via dental records of patients attending an educational institution. Dental records of 202 patients receiving 774 dental implants from 2002 to 2014 were analyzed by adopting a more reliable statistical method to evaluate risk factors with patients as the unit [generalized estimating equation (GEE)]. Information regarding patient age at implantation, sex, use of tobacco, and history of systemic diseases was collected. Information about implant location in the arch region and implant length, diameter, and placement in a grafted area was evaluated after 2 years under load. Systemic and local risk factors for early and late implant failure were studied. A total of 18 patients experienced 25 implant failures, resulting in an overall survival rate of 96.8% (2.84% and 0.38% early and late implant failures, respectively). The patient-based survival rate was 91.8%. GEE univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that a significant risk factor for implant failure was the maxillary implant (p = 0.006 and p = 0.014, respectively). Bone grafting appeared to be a risk factor for implant failure (p = 0.054). According to GEE analyses, maxillary implants had significantly worse outcomes in this population and were considered to be a risk factor for implant failure. Our results suggested that implants placed in a bone augmentation area had a tendency to fail.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Risk factors for implant failure: a retrospective study in an educational institution using GEE analyses

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such uncertainty is revealed by the various dimensions considered in scientific studies: implants varying from 4 to 10 mm in length. According to Renouard and Nisand, 14 the most appropriate definition of a short implant is a system of which intraosseous length is less than or equal to 8 mm, which therefore can be influenced by the surgical technique. 4,15 Santiago Júnior et al 1 claim that short implants are those implants with less than 10 mm in length.…”

Section: Short Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of short implants use in the jaws: a retrospective pilot study

Gumes¹,

Sório²,

Cysneiros³

et al. 2015

Dental Press Implantol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nowadays, the treatment planning of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation in the atrophic rear maxilla offers vari-ous possibilities linked to the choice of using short (6) rather than angled implants, or enhance the amount of residual bone with techniques to increase the sinus floor (7). In attempt to avoid a bone graft procedure, the choice to insert short implants often is the result of compromised biomechanical situations, in which implants are located in poor bone sites with low quality and high strength of occlusal loading (8-10); short implants have been associated with lower success rates compared with most of standard length implants (11). Currently, in absence of an adequate bone height, the results obtained by the use of short implants may be comparable to those of longer ones placed in regenerated bone, (6) but further investigations are needed to confirm the long-term follow-up data at 5 months published to date.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transcrestal guided sinus lift without grafting materials: a 36 months clinical prospective study

Spinelli¹,

Vico²,

Condò

et al. 2015

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYPurpose. This study describes the ability to perform a technique for bone regeneration in maxillary posterior deficit (TGSL) without the use of bone grafting materials using a highly minimally invasive protocol. Materials and methods. Sixty six implants have been inserted in the sinus floor of a total of 39 patients through the transcrestal guided sinus lift technique (TGSL). All patients have been followed for at least three years in function. The drilling protocol was adapted on the basis of bone density of each implant site to achieve a torque between 45 and 55 Ncm. Healing titanium abutments tightened to 35 Ncm have been used. A CAD/CAM metal ceramics final prosthetic restoration has been generated a six months after the tissues healing and the provisional functionalization of the occlusion. Survival rate of implants and prostheses, biological and biomechanical complications, changes in marginal bone levels, and total height of alveolar crest bone before and after surgery have been evaluate and measured by the results obtained in this prospective study. It was also measured the periodontal parameters as well as levels of perception of pain by the patient during the entire recovery period.Results. The result of the data of follow-up was 41.96 (24 to 36) months. Cumulative implant survival was 98.53% at 3 years. There were no biological and mechanical complications and there were no prosthetic failures during the whole period of follow-up. The Marginal Bone Loss (MBL) average during the first year of operation was from 0.33 to 0.36 mm, while the 3-year follow-up, the MBL average was 0.51 to 0.29 mm. The average of residual bone height of alveolar ridge before treatment was 6.7 to 1.6 mm (range 5.1 to 9.2 mm), while the average bone height was gained 6,4 -1.6 mm (range 3.2 to 8.1 mm). All patients reported lower pain levels and found to have normal periodontal parameters. Conclusions. This study suggests that the use of guided surgery to perform transcrestal maxillary sinus lift to increase the sub-antral crestal height is a minimally invasive technique of success for the short and medium-term of follow-up, thus avoiding the extended treatment time and reducing the morbidity associated with the lifting of the floor of the maxillary sinus with traditional technique using bone grafting materials. Furthermore, this protocol without the use of graft materials does not vary the final outcome that have demonstrated the presence of newly formed bone around implants offering always predictable results, and giving a further reduction in the costs of the procedure rehabilitation.

show abstract

Short Implants in the Severely Resorbed Maxilla: A 2‐Year Retrospective Clinical Study

Abstract: This study demonstrates that the use of short implants may be considered for prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla as an alternative to more complicated surgical techniques.

Cited by 196 publications

References 16 publications

Risk factors for implant failure: a retrospective study in an educational institution using GEE analyses

Risk factors for implant failure: a retrospective study in an educational institution using GEE analyses

Prevalence of short implants use in the jaws: a retrospective pilot study

Transcrestal guided sinus lift without grafting materials: a 36 months clinical prospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About