The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of the Survival Rate of Short Dental Implants in Medically Compromised Patients

Kyatsandra N Jagadeesh, Amit Kumar Verma, Anuj Singh Parihar, Abhaya C Das, Mohammed A Razi

Citation Information : Jagadeesh KN, Verma AK, Parihar AS, Das AC, Razi MA. Assessment of the Survival Rate of Short Dental Implants in Medically Compromised Patients. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (8):880-883.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2854

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-12-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: To assess the survival rate of short dental implants in medically compromised patients. Materials and method: This follow-up study was conducted on 342 medically compromised patients of both genders (580 dental implants). The failure rate of dental implants was assessed. Results: There were 142 diabetes mellitus patients with 254 dental implants, 108 patients with hypertension with 190 dental implants, 26 patients with mental disabilities with 40 dental implants, 20 oral cancer patients with 36 dental implants, and 46 osteomyelitis subjects with 60 dental implants. There were 60 (10.5%) short dental implant (SDI) failures of which a maximum of 25 (22.7%) were seen with 4 mm diameter. Maximum failure was seen with osteomyelitis patients 8 (13.3%) followed by diabetes mellitus 32 (12.5%). Out of 270 dental implants in 130 control patients, implant failure was seen in 11 (4.07%). There was a significant (p < 0.05) bone loss on follow-up at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Conclusion: Medically compromised patients are more prone to dental implant failure as compared to healthy subjects. Clinical significance: Since medically compromised patients are prone for implant failure, careful selection of cases is necessary.

  1. Lemos CA, Ferro-Alves ML, Okamoto R, et al. Short dental implants vs standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;47:8–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005.
  2. Kim IH, Kuk TS, Park SY, et al. Prognosis following dental implant treatment under general anesthesia in patients with special needs. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2017;17(3):205–213. DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2017.17.3.205.
  3. Mohajerani H, Roozbayani R, Taherian S, et al. The risk factors in early failure of dental implants: a retrospective study. J Dent (Shiraz) 2017;18:298–303.
  4. Benlidayi ME, Ucar Y, Tatli U, et al. Short implants vs standard implants: midterm outcomes of a clinical study. Implant Dent 2018;27:95–100. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000710.
  5. Papaspyridakos P, De Souza A, Vazouras K, et al. Survival rates of short dental implants (≤6 mM) compared with implants longer than 6 mM in posterior jaw areas: a meta-analysis. Clinical oral implants research 2018;29:8–20. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13289.
  6. Vissink A, Spijkervet FK, Raghoebar GM. The medically compromised patient: are dental implants a feasible option? Oral diseases 2018;24(1–2):253–260. DOI: 10.1111/odi.12762.
  7. Eskow CC, Oates TW. Dental implant survival and complication rate over 2 years for individuals with poorly controlled type I diabetes mellitus. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19(3):423–431. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12465.
  8. Georgakopoulou EA, Scully C. Biological agents: what they are, how they affect oral health and how they can modulate oral healthcare. Br Dent J 2015;218(12):671–677. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.439.
  9. Dalago HR, Schuldt Filho G, Rodrigues MA, et al. Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A cross-sectional study with 916 implants. Clini Oral Implants Res 2017;28(2):144–150. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12772.
  10. Dubey RK, Gupta DK, Singh AK. Dental implant survival in diabetic patients; review and recommendations. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2013;4(2):142–150. DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.127642.
  11. Bornstein MM, Cionca N, Mombelli A. Systemic conditions and treatments as risks for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(Suppl):12–27.
  12. Parihar AS, Madhuri S, Devanna R, et al. Assessment of failure rate of dental implants in medically compromised patients. J Family Med Prim Care 2020;9(2):883–885. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_989_19.
  13. Gheorghiu IM, Stoian IM. Implant surgery in healthy compromised patients-review of literature. J Med Life 2014;7(Spec Iss 2):7–10.
  14. Nguyen TT, Eo MY, Cho YJ, et al. 7 mM-long dental implants: retrospective clinical outcomes in medically compromised patients. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;45(5):260–266. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2019.45.5.260.
  15. Verma S, Srivastava SK, Khemka A. Success rate of dental implants in medically compromised patients: a retrospective study. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res 2019;7(12):6–8.
  16. Gómez-de Diego R, Mang-de la Rosa Mdel R, Romero-Pérez MJ, et al. Indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients: update. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2014;19(5):483–489. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.19565.
  17. Villa G, De Stavola L, Fincato A, et al. Short, parallel-walled conical connection implants for a broad range of indications in maxilla and mandible: retrospective multicentre study with up to 33 months of fallow up. Quintessence Int 2018;49(8):645–651.
  18. Calvo-Guirado JL, Morales-Meléndez H, Pérez-Albacete Martínez C, et al. Evaluation of the surrounding ring of two different extra-short implant designs in crestal bone Maintenance: a Histologic study in dogs. Materials 2018;11(9):1630–1634. DOI: 10.3390/ma11091630.
  19. Anitua E, Piñas L, Begoña L, et al. Long-term retrospective evaluation of short implants in the posterior areas: clinical results after 10–12 years. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41(4):404–411. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12222.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.