The Survival of Short and Ultrashort Plateau Root Form Implants

Urdaneta, Rainier A.; Chuang, Sung-Kiang

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44199-9_8

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses agreed that short implants could be a suitable alternative to more invasive procedures when there is the need to treat alveolar atrophy of the posterior jaws [15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Similar survival rates, when compared with standard-length implants, have been reported for short implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…A trend towards a reduction in the implant length of short implants has been observed in recent years, with the introduction in the market of Extrashort and Ultrashort implants (5–6 mm length, or even less) [15,16,17,24]. These implants have been shown to be able to osseointegrate and bear a functional load [24]. Furthermore, Nanoshort implants with a still-reduced implant length (2.5/3.5 mm length) are available in the market [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses have shown that the survivals of short and standard-length implants are similar [18,19,20,21,22,23]. In the past few years, implants with a reduced length (4, 5, and 6 mm) (Ultrashort or Extrashort implants) have been proposed [16,24]. In the market, it is also possible to find implants with a still-reduced length (2.5 or 3.5 mm) (NanoShort implants) [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An In Vitro Evaluation, on Polyurethane Foam Sheets, of the Insertion Torque (IT) Values, Pull-Out Torque Values, and Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) of NanoShort Dental Implants

Comuzzi¹,

Iezzi

Piattelli

et al. 2019

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate, in polyurethane foam sheets, the primary implant stability of a NanoShort implant compared to a self-condenser implant and to a standard, conventional implant. Materials and Methods: Three implant designs were evaluated in the present in vitro investigation: The Test implant (NanoShort), the Control A implant (self-condenser), and the Control B implant (standard design). The study was conducted by comparing the insertion torque values, the pull-out strength values, and the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values of the Test and Control A and B implants inserted in polyurethane foam models of different thicknesses and densities. The foam densities were 10, 20, and 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Three thicknesses of polyurethane foams (1, 2, 3 mm) were evaluated for a total of 640 experimental sites. Results: The Pearson correlation showed a moderate/strong correlation between all study groups (r > 0.3) for insertion torque and pull-out strength levels. Increased stability of the Test implants was obtained in 3 mm polyurethane sheets. The 2.5 and 3.5 mm Test implants presented good stability in 3 mm polyurethane sheets of 20–30 pcf densities. The Control implants showed better results compared to the Test implants in 1, 2, and 3 mm polyurethane sheets with densities of 10, 20, and 30 pcf. Conclusions: The NanoShort dental implant evaluated in this in vitro study showed a high level of stability in some experimental conditions, and could represent a useful tool, especially in the posterior mandible, as an alternative to vertical augmentation procedures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An In Vitro Evaluation, on Polyurethane Foam Sheets, of the Insertion Torque (IT) Values, Pull-Out Torque Values, and Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) of NanoShort Dental Implants

Comuzzi¹,

Iezzi

Piattelli

et al. 2019

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implants ≤10 mm,19 ≤8 mm,20 ≤7 mm21 and 6–8 mm22 are reported to have survival rates comparable to those of longer implants. In addition, short implants ≤6 mm in length have been introduced as another alternative in atrophic posterior maxilla 6 23 24. Short implants require a less complicated surgical approach and could be used in cases when sinus floor elevation surgery is not applicable,25 26 especially in cases of maxillary sinusitis, maxillary cyst, large vessels and other cases involving abnormal sinus anatomy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yan

et al. 2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1–3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1–3 years follow-up (MD=−0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=−0.25 mm, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

show abstract

“…Durch die Gestaltungsmerkmale wie dem Platform-Switching und der rückwärtsgerichteten Implantatschulter kann mit kurzen Implantaten eine gute Langzeitstabilität erreicht werden [9]. So zeigen Implantate mit einer chronischen Klopfverbindung und kurzen bis sehr kurzen Implantatlängen eine sehr hohe Erfolgsquote, obwohl das klassische Kronen-Implantat-Verhältnis nicht eingehalten wird [19]. Diese kurzen Implantate zeigen dann aber in der Regel einen größeren Implantatdurchmesser auf, damit eine entsprechende Krafteinleitung in den Kiefer erfolgen kann.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified