Short Narrow Dental Implants versus Long Narrow Dental Implants in Fixed Prostheses: A Prospective Clinical Study

Anitua, Eduardo; Escuer, Virginia; Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan

doi:10.3390/dj10030039

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All these measures have together resulted in reducing the risk of late implant failure although 74.7% of the extra-short implants have been also narrow implants (diameter ≤ 3.5 mm). Two other clinical studies have shown a high survival rate (93.4% and 100%) and good marginal bone stability in short-term follow-up [ 65 , 66 ]. However, more studies are warranted to critically assess the clinical performance of short and narrow dental implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two Fig. 3 The length of the extra-short implants that were placed at mandibular sites with and without sufficient height to place longer implants other clinical studies have shown a high survival rate (93.4% and 100%) and good marginal bone stability in short-term follow-up [65,66]. However, more studies are warranted to critically assess the clinical performance of short and narrow dental implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) in atrophic and non-atrophic sites to support screw-retained full-arch restoration: a retrospective clinical study

Anitua,

Eguia,

Alkhraisat

2023

Int J Implant Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Increasing scientific evidence support extending the application of short dental implants to non-atrophic dental arches. The purpose of this study has been the evaluation of extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) that were placed in atrophic and non-atrophic anatomical sites to support the same prosthesis. Methods For that, a retrospective study was conducted by including complete dentures that were solely supported by extra-short implants in the maxilla and/or the mandible. Clinical data about patients, implants, anatomy, and prosthesis were obtained. Statistical analysis was performed to assess implant- and prosthesis-survival, changes in the marginal bone level and prosthetic complications. Results A total of 87 implants in 15 screw-retained complete dentures were assessed. None of the prostheses nor the extra-short implant failed during the follow-up of 27.2 ± 15.4 months. The changes in the mesial and distal marginal bone level were + 0.15 ± 0.51 mm and + 0.11 ± 0.50 mm, respectively. Comparing the implants according to the availability of sufficient bone to place longer implants, indicated the absence of significant differences in the changes of the mesial marginal bone level. However, the changes in the distal marginal bone level showed a statistically significant difference in favor of implants that were placed in non-atrophic sites. Two events of screw loosening were reported that were resolved by retightening the screws. Conclusions Implant- and prosthesis-related outcomes support the use of extra-short implants in atrophic and non-atrophic site to support complete prosthesis. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) in atrophic and non-atrophic sites to support screw-retained full-arch restoration: a retrospective clinical study

Anitua,

Eguia,

Alkhraisat

2023

Int J Implant Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Basically, dental implants with (length > 10 mm and diameter > 3.5 mm) are used in various clinical situations. 11 Although the advantages of fixed implant restorations are undeniable, in many patients' restoration with fixed implants is not possible without bone grafting and additional surgical procedures, as well as additional time and cost involved. 12 To install an implant in the atrophied posterior part of the jaw, additional procedures are required: autogenous bone grafting, sinus lifting, repositioning of the inferior alveolar nerve, distraction method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Patients With Completely Edentulous Jaws Using Different Options for Implant- Supported Structures

Hakobyan,

Tarasenok

2024

JBSMFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To conduct a comparative analysis the effectiveness of prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with completely edentulous jaws using various options for implant-supported structures. Materials and methods: We examined and carried out complex treatment with the installation of implants in 82 patients (56 to 73 aged) years with completely edentulous jaws. All patients underwent a clinical examination and using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) analyzed of residual bone. Patients with edentulous were rehabilitated with three implant-supported prosthetic protocols. The patient was divided into 3 groups: 21 (1grup.) patients received removable overdenture supported by 4 implants using a bar system, 19 (2grup) patients received removable overdenture supported by 4 implants using rail system of attachments, 23 (3grup) patients received fixed restorations supported by 4 implants. Peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL), immediately (base line for comparison) and 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years after implant installation, compared with values at last follow-up. The method of questioning patients was used. The assessment was carried out using a point system: chewing efficiency, ease of care and use, stability of the dentures. Quality of life, assess used the Oral health-related quality of life the OHIP-G scale. Results: In clinical follow-up the implants showed no mobility, soreness or pain during function, patients had healthy soft tissues. For patients 1group MBL after 1 year 0.82 mm, after 3 years 1.23 mm, after 5 years was 1.46 mm. For patients 2group MBL after 1 year 0.84 mm, after 3 years 1.28 mm, after 5 years was 1.49 mm. For patients 3 group MBL after 1 year 0.91 mm, after 3 years 1.32 mm, after 5 years was 1.53mm. The patients were satisfied with the result of treatment using implants. Speech adaptation of patients with removable dentures, fixed implants, occurred within a week. 5-year implants cumulative survival rate 1group rates was 96.7%, 2 group was 97.2%, 3 group rates was 96,9%. The prosthesis cumulative survival rate 1group was 96.7%, 2 group was 97.4%, 3 group was 97,6%. Conclusion: Implant-supporting structures on implants, installed between the mental foramens, are a reliable and predictable method for patients with complete edentulous jaws and significant jaw resorption. This solution is a reliable alternative to bone grafting, demonstrating fewer complications, fewer additional surgical procedures, and demonstrating satisfactory long-term survival.

show abstract

Clinical Reliability of Complete-Arch Fixed Prostheses Supported by Narrow-Diameter Implants to Support Complete-Arch Restorations

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical application of fixed screw-retained complete-arch rehabilitations supported by four narrow-diameter implants (NDIs). The records of patients treated with complete-arch prostheses screwed onto four NDIs treated with an immediate loading protocol between 2010 and 2020 with at least 1 year of follow-up after the positioning of the definitive restoration were reviewed. The implants were placed according to the final prosthetic design and were immediately loaded. The interim prostheses were replaced after the healing period by definitive acrylic resin titanium-supported prostheses. Patients were followed to evaluate treatment success, the implant survival rate (ISR), and the prosthetic survival rate (PSR). A total of 121 NDIs were positioned in 30 patients to restore 30 complete arches (18 maxilla and 12 mandible). One implant did not achieve osseointegration, resulting in an overall ISR of 99.2%. No prosthetic or implant failures occurred during the 1 to 11 years of follow-up. Three biological and four prosthetic complications occurred, resulting in a treatment rehabilitation survival of 94.1% and a PSR of 86.7%. Despite the limitations of the present retrospective study, such as the use of one single type of dental implant and patients treated in a single rehabilitation center, complete-arch rehabilitation with fixed prostheses supported by four NDIs seems to be a reliable treatment in the medium to long term.

show abstract

Short Narrow Dental Implants versus Long Narrow Dental Implants in Fixed Prostheses: A Prospective Clinical Study

Cited by 3 publications

References 84 publications

Extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) in atrophic and non-atrophic sites to support screw-retained full-arch restoration: a retrospective clinical study

Extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) in atrophic and non-atrophic sites to support screw-retained full-arch restoration: a retrospective clinical study

Comparative Analysis of Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Patients With Completely Edentulous Jaws Using Different Options for Implant- Supported Structures

Clinical Reliability of Complete-Arch Fixed Prostheses Supported by Narrow-Diameter Implants to Support Complete-Arch Restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About