Extra short dental implants supporting an overdenture in the edentulous maxilla: A proof of concept

Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Clinical Oral Implants Research (Impact Factor: 3.89). 07/2011; 23(5):567-76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02235.x
Source: PubMed


This study investigates the outcome of short implants additionally placed with longer implants to support a maxillary overdenture.
Twelve patients received six implants to support a maxillary overdenture. Only one patient still had two molars in the maxilla, while the others had no remaining teeth. The status of the opposing arch was diverse. The distal implant in each quadrant was 6 mm in height (S) and the middle implants ranged between 10 and 14 mm (L). All implants were placed following a one-stage procedure and early loaded (6 weeks). Clinical and radiological parameters were assessed 6, 12 and 24 months after loading.
One short implant failed 2 weeks after surgery, probably due to early mobilization by the provisional prosthesis. The mean bone loss on the rough part of the implant was 0.7 mm (S) vs. 1.3 mm (L) during the first year and 0.3 mm (S) vs. 0.2 mm (L) during the second year after loading. The mean implant stability quotient values were 67 (S) vs. 70 (L) at placement and 75 (S) vs. 78 (L) after 1 year. At the 2-year follow- up, all prostheses were still stable and comfortable.
An overdenture on six implants, of which two have a reduced length, might represent a successful treatment option. No significant difference could be found between both implant lengths at 2 years' follow-up. However, bone loss with short implants may increase the likelihood of failure.

1 Follower
23 Reads
    • "This result is slightly lower than reported by this research. However, the bone loss at 6 months is similar to or even better than in investigations with longer implants (Draenert et al. 2012; Van Assche et al. 2012). Other researchers demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of unsplinted 5.0 9 5.0 mm and 4.5 9 6.0 mm short implants not only exhibited osseointegration comparable to that of conventional length implants but also contributed to the patient's satisfaction with treatment time, esthetics, and cost (Yi et al. 2011). "
    Jose Luis Calvo-Guirado · Jose Alberto Lopez Torres · Michel Dard · Fawad Javed · Carlos Perez-Albacete Martınez · Jose Eduardo Mate Sanchez de Val
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The aim of this research was to evaluate the primary stability, the marginal bone loss, the survival, and the success criteria, of 4-mm-length implants compared with implants of conventional length supporting fixed prostheses. Materials and Methods: Ten patients were selected for treatment of their atrophic edentulous jaws. Each patient received the following treatment: six dental implants were inserted, two anterior implants of conventional length (10-mm) in the interforaminal area and four posterior short implants of 4-mm length (Standard Plus, Roxolid, SLActive, Institut Straumann AG). The implants supported screw-retained fixed complete dentures. Examinations were conducted at day 0, three, six, and twelve months after surgery for the evaluation of the implant primary stability, secondary stability, crestal bone loss and survival by clinical evaluations, insertion torque values, resonance frequency analysis (RFA), and periapical radiography, respectively. Results: Sixty implants were inserted in ten patients. Mean insertion torque was slightly lower for 4-mm implants than 10-mm implants (38.1 Ncm vs. 42.2 Ncm) but without statistically significant difference. Implant stability was similar for extrashort and conventional implants. Marginal bone loss was similar for both groups for all the time periods. One short implant was lost before loading. The survival rates twelve months after implant placement were of 97.5% and 100% for short and conventional implants, respectively. Similarly, implant stability as measured by RFA was nonsignificantly lower for the 4-mm implants compared to the 10-mm implants. The marginal bone loss was lower for short implants three, six, and twelve months after the surgery without statistical significant difference. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that short dental implants (8 mm or less in length) supporting single crowns or fixed bridges are a feasible treatment option with radiographic and clinical success rates similar to longer implants for patients with compromised ridges. Long-term data with larger number of implants and subjects are needed to confirm these preliminary results.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 09/2015; DOI:10.1111/clr.12704 · 3.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "More recent studies, however, suggested that short implants (7 to <10 mm) can reach similar success rates as longer ones for the support of fixed partial dental prostheses [8] [9] [10]. Even 3-year [11] and 7-year [12] followup studies reported retrospectively that short implants (8 to 9 mm long) [9] [13] [14] were not less successful compared with implants >10 mm long in the posterior region with fixed partial dental prostheses. This paper was aimed to review the works regarding the stability and survival rate of short implants under functional loads. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper was aimed to review the studies published about short dental implants. In the focus were the works that investigated the effect of biting forces of the rate of marginal bone resorption around short implants and their survival rates. Bone deformation defined by strain was obviously higher around short implants than the conventional ones. The clinical outcomes of 6 mm short implants after 2 years showed a survival rate of 94% to 95% and lower survival rate (<80%) for 7 mm short implants after 3 to 6 years for single crown restorations. The short implants used for supporting fixed partial prostheses had a survival rate of 98.9%. Short implants can be considered as a good alternative implant therapy to support single crown or partial fixed restorations.
    05/2013; 2013:424592. DOI:10.1155/2013/424592
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this prospective study was to investigate the clinical success of a treatment protocol for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla consisting of the positioning of short implants in combination with transcrestal sinus lifting, with the adjunct of pure (leukocyte-free) platelet-rich plasma, in order to reducing the risk of membrane perforation and other surgical complications. Materials and methods: A total of 25 patients (65 implants) were treated. Pure platelet-rich plasma was used in the sinus membrane lifting procedure. Implants of 8.5 mm length or shorter were splinted through the prosthetic rehabilitation with one or more implants longer than 10 mm. Results: After a follow-up period ranging from 12 to 19 months (mean 14.4 months) after prosthetic loading, 23 patients (60 implants) were evaluated. Overall implant success and survival rates were 100% at 1 year follow-up visit. All prosthetic rehabilitations were successful and in function. After 1 year of loading, peri-implant bone loss averaged 0.34 ± 0.21 mm for 8.5 mm or shorter implants (n = 25) and 0.36 ± 0.30 mm for longer implants (n = 35) (overall mean 0.35 ± 0.25 mm) without significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.23). Conclusions: The proposed treatment protocol is a viable option for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior atrophic maxilla.
    Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 08/2012; 16(2). DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00483.x · 3.59 Impact Factor
Show more