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: 3.12). 07/2011; 23(5):567-76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02235.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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
  • 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. DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00483.x · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: This study aimed to compare the survival rate of short (<10mm) and standard (10mm) rough surface dental implants under functional loading. Material and Methods: An electronic literature search using PubMed and MEDLINE databases was conducted. Prospective clinical human trials, published in English from January 1997 to July 2011, which examined dental implants of less than 10mm with a 12-month follow-up, were included in this meta-analysis. The following data were retrieved from the included articles: the number of implants, implant dimensions, implants locations, types of prostheses, follow-up periods and implant survival rates. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and the hazard rates were analyzed and compared between short and standard implants. Results: Thirteen studies were selected, examining 1955 dental implants, of which 914 were short implants. Short dental implants had an estimated survival rate of 88.1% at 168 months when standard dental implants had a similar estimated survival rate of 86.7% (p=0.254). The peak failure rate of short dental implants was found to occur between 4-6 years of function. This occurred at an earlier time point compared to standard dental implants, where the peak failure rate occurred between 6-8 years of function. Conclusion: This study showed that in the long-term, implants less than 10 mm were as predictable as longer implants. However, they fail at an earlier stage compared to standard implants.
    Journal of Periodontology 08/2012; 84(7). DOI:10.1902/jop.2012.120328 · 2.57 Impact Factor
Show more