The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of Short and Regular Implants after Prosthesis Placement in the Mandible: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Frederico S Lages, Carolina P Rivera, Ana P de Souza Faloni

Citation Information : Lages FS, Rivera CP, de Souza Faloni AP. Evaluation of Short and Regular Implants after Prosthesis Placement in the Mandible: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (12):1122-1129.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2187

Published Online: 01-12-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this nonrandomized controlled preliminary clinical trial was to compare treatment using short and conventional implants in the posterior region of the mandible after prosthesis installation by means of clinical, resonance frequency, and radiographic analyses.

Materials and methods

A total of 10 patients with 40 dental implants already installed were included in this study. Four implants were installed for each subject, in which the length of the implants (short and conventional) was distributed according to the reminiscent alveolar bone in the left and right side of the mandible. All implants received splinted prosthesis after the osseointegration period. Analyses were performed immediately after prosthesis installation (T1), and 3 (T2) and 6 months (T3) after prosthesis placement.

Results

The 6-month survival and success rates were 100% for the short and conventional implants. Probing depths (PDs) after 6 months did not show statistical differences between short and conventional implants. All groups showed mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) values above 60 in all periods evaluated, demonstrating great implant stability, and no differences were found between groups at T3. Radiographic measurements showed an increased bone loss for conventional implants compared with short implants in all the three periods evaluated.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that treatment of resorbed posterior regions in the mandible with shorter dental implants is as reliable as treatment with conventional implants after 6 months of splinted prosthesis installation.

Clinical significance

Short implants might be considered a predictable treatment alternative to bone augmentation or extensive surgical techniques in regions of restricted vertical bone height in the posterior region of the mandible.

How to cite this article

de Molon RS, Lages FS, Rivera CP, de Souza Faloni AP, Margonar R, Queiroz TP. Evaluation of Short and Regular Implants after Prosthesis Placement in the Mandible: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(12):1122-1129.


PDF Share
  1. Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999 Sep-Oct;14(5):639-645.
  2. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990 Winter;5(4):347-359.
  3. Inferior alveolar nerve lateral transposition. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009 Dec;13(4):213-219.
  4. Correlation of fractal dimension with histomorphometry in maxillary sinus lifting using autogenous bone graft. Braz Dent J 2015 Jan-Feb;26(1):11-18.
  5. Implants of 6 mm vs 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 Dec;24(12):1325-1331.
  6. Survival rates of short (6 mm) micro-rough surface implants: a review of literature and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014 May;25(5):539-545.
  7. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1323-1331.
  8. Long-term retrospective evaluation of short implants in the posterior areas: clinical results after 10-12 years. J Clin Periodontol 2014 Apr;41(4):404-411.
  9. A 4 years follow-up study of immediate and delayed loading of small-diameter dental implants. Int Dent Med J Adv Res 2017 Jan;3:1-4.
  10. Survival of short dental implants ≤7 mm: a review. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015 Nov;2015:011015.
  11. Short dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012 Jan;91(1):25-32.
  12. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 2011 Jul;38(7):667-676.
  13. Short dental implants: a literature review and rationale for use. Dent Today 2005 Aug;24(8):64-66, 68.
  14. The anchorage of Brånemark and ITI implants of different lengths. I. An experimental study in the canine mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003 Oct;14(5):593-600.
  15. Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study. J Periodontol 2006 Aug;77(8):1340-1347.
  16. Clinical study on survival rate of short implants placed in the posterior mandibular region: resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015 Sep;26(9):1036-1042.
  17. Implant stability after sinus floor augmentation with deproteinized bovine bone mineral particles of different sizes: a prospective, randomized and controlled split-mouth clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016 Dec;45(12):1556-1563.
  18. Implant stability measurement of delayed and immediately loaded implants during healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004 Oct;15(5):529-539.
  19. Comparison between embossed digital imaging and unprocessed film-based radiography in detecting periodontal bone defects: an in vitro study. Oral Radiol 2012 Sep;28(2):95-100.
  20. Measurements of simulated periodontal bone defects in inverted digital image and film-based radiograph: an in vitro study. Imaging Sci Dent 2012 Dec;42(4):243-247.
  21. Early loading of 6-mm-short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns – a prospective 5-year cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015 Apr;26(4):471-477.
  22. Differences in crestal bone-to-implant contact following an under-drilling compared to an over-drilling protocol. A study in the rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Investig 2016 Dec;20(9):2475-2480.
  23. Effect of insertion torque on titanium implant osseointegration: an animal experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015 Feb;26(2):191-196.
  24. Replacing posterior teeth with freestanding implants: four-year prosthodontic results of a prospective study. J Am Dent Assoc 1998 Aug;129(8):1097-1102.
  25. Impact of diabetes mellitus and metabolic control on bone healing around osseointegrated implants: removal torque and histomorphometric analysis in rats. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 Jul;24(7):831-837.
  26. Short implants–an analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006 Jan-Feb;21(1):86-93.
  27. Short dental implants as a treatment option: results from an observational study in a single private practice. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006 Sep-Oct;21(5):769-776.
  28. Stress analysis in edentulous mandibular bone supporting implant-retained 1-piece or multiple superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005 Jul-Aug;20(4):578-583.
  29. Influence of implant length and bicortical anchorage on implant stress distribution. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003 Dec;5(4):254-262.
  30. A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 1991;17(2):126-131.
  31. Current status of dental implants: a periodontal perspective. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 Jan-Feb;15(1):56-65.
  32. Enhancement of the damaged edentulous ridge to receive dental implants: a combination of allograft and the GORE-TEX membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1992 Feb;12(2):96-111.
  33. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25.
  34. Immediate and delayed implantation for complete restoration of the jaw following extraction of all residual teeth: a retrospective study comparing different types of serial immediate implantation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995 Sep-Oct;10(5):561-567.
  35. Diagnostic parameters for monitoring peri-implant conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19 (Suppl):116-127.
  36. Stability testing of a wide bone-anchored device after surgery without skin thinning. Biomed Res Int 2015 Jan;2015:853072.
  37. Predicting osseointegration by means of implant primary stability. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004 Oct;15(5):520-528.
  38. Comparison of changes in dental and bone radiographic densities in the presence of different soft-tissue simulators using pixel intensity and digital subtraction analyses. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013 Sep;42(9):20130235.
  39. Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Brånemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000 Oct;2(4):184-189.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.