Short implants (≤8mm) compared to standard length implants (>8mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Accuracy of freehand versus dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant placement: An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy of zygomatic implant placement using a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (D-CAIS) versus the traditional freehand approach.

METHODS

An experimental in vitro study was conducted using 10 stereolithographic models randomized to two groups: D-CAIS (test group) and freehand placement (control group). A single zygomatic implant was placed on each side of the models. The accuracy of implant placement was assessed by superimposing the actual postoperative implant position, obtained via cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), with the virtual preoperative surgical plan from the preoperative CBCT. Additionally, the operated side and surgery duration were recorded. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the data.

RESULTS

The D-CAIS group demonstrated significantly greater accuracy across most outcome variables. Reductions in angular (MD = -5.33°; 95 %CI: -7.37 to -3.29; p < 0.001), coronal global (MD = -2.26 mm; 95 %CI: -2.97 to -1.55; p < 0.001), coronal horizontal 2D (MD = -1.96 mm; 95 %CI: -2.60 to -1.32; p < 0.001) and apical global deviations (MD = -3.37 mm; 95 %CI: -4.36 to -2.38; p < 0.001) were observed. Accuracy in the freehand group varied significantly between operated sides. However, the surgical procedures in the D-CAIS group were significantly longer (MD = 11.90 mins; 95 %CI: 9.37 to 14.44; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

D-CAIS navigation systems offer significantly greater accuracy in zygomatic implant placement compared to the traditional freehand technique. Additionally, D-CAIS systems may minimize discrepancies in accuracy between operated sides, though their use is associated with an increase in the duration of surgery.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

D-CAIS navigation systems improve the accuracy of zygomatic implant placement. However, an increase in the duration of surgery is to be expected.

Accuracy of freehand surgery, static and dynamic computer assisted surgery on zygomatic implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analyses

Real-time surgical navigation systems (dynamic computer-aided surgery, d-CAIS) and static guided surgery (static computer-aided surgery, s-CAIS) have been shown to enhance the accuracy of zygomatic implant (ZI) placement. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the accuracy and risk of complications associated with d-CAIS and s-CAIS in ZI placement. A systematic review of published studies involving more than 4 patients was conducted to assess and compare the accuracy of d-CAIS and s-CAIS in zygomatic implant placement. Only one study included freehand ZI placement as a control. The primary outcomes measured were the accuracy of implant placement relative to preoperative planning, with a secondary focus on evaluating any potential complications. Out of 903 screened studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. Freehand zygomatic implant placement was used as a control in only 1 study. The results revealed a mean apex deviation of 2.07 mm (95% CI: 2.01 to 2.13; I2 = 83.14%) for d-CAIS, 1.29 mm (95% CI: 1.15 to 1.43; I2 = 94.5%) for s-CAIS, and 4.98 mm (95% CI: 3.59 to 6.37; I2 = not assessable) for freehand placement. Reported complications included mucositis, reversible bilateral sinusitis, oroantral fistula, unspecified reversible postoperative complications, and fracture of the anterior wall of the zygoma. Both CAIS systems demonstrated high accuracy and safety in ZI placement, with a nearly 99% success rate at 6 months of follow-up. These findings suggest that both d-CAIS and s-CAIS are reliable methods for improving the precision and reducing the risks associated with ZI procedures.

Cone-beam computed tomography assessment of palatal-nasal recess of maxillary sinus in dentulous and edentulous subjects

Background

Implant placement in the posterior maxilla is challenging in the case of maxillary sinus pneumatization. Increasing the vertical dimension by grafting the sinus floor is a common surgical modality. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans are used to assess the presurgical anatomic variations of the maxillary sinus and determine the difficulty that might be encountered while performing sinus elevation. The sinus membrane is elevated from both the lateral and mesial walls of the sinus. The location and angulation of the palatal-nasal recess (PNR) on the medial wall of the sinus could complicate the elevation of the sinus membrane in this region. This study aimed to assess the angulation of the PNR and its position with respect to the alveolar crest in dentulous and edentulous subjects in the 1st molar region on CBCT scans.

Materials and Methods

One hundred and fifty-two scans were selected from the department database. Sagittal sections including the 1st molar region were selected and measurements made. The PNR height was measured from the alveolar crest in millimeters and angulation in degrees and compared between the dentulous and edentulous groups.

Results

The dentulous group showed a statistically significant greater distance (10.4 ± 2.8 mm) between the alveolar crest and PNR as compared to the edentulous group (8.08 ± 3.1 mm). The edentulous group showed a statistically significant greater PNR angle (139.6o ± 13.6o) as compared to the dentulous group (133.4o ± 16.4o).

Conclusion

Maxillary sinuses with acute-angled PNR and lesser distance from the alveolar crest should be carefully evaluated to avoid complications such as membrane perforation during their elevation from the bony wall of the sinus.

Outcomes of treatment with short dental implants compared with standard-length implants: a retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

The size of dental implants is a key success factor for appropriate osseointegration. Using shorter implants allows the possibility of avoiding complex surgical procedures and reduces the morbidity of treatment. Shorter implants also enable implant-prosthetic rehabilitation after maxillofacial reconstructions where only limited bone is available. In this study, the success rates of short implants were examined and compared to those of standard-sized implants.

METHODS

Patients who received dental implants between 2007 and 2016 at the Department of Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology Semmelweis University were enrolled in the study. Several clinical parameters were recorded and supplemented with radiological examinations. The data were statistically analysed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients with a total of 60 implants were included. The average time after prosthetic loading was 39.33 ± 21.96 months in the group with 8-mm implants and 41.6 ± 27.5 months in the group with > 8-mm implants. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of probing depth (short implants, 2.84 ± 0.09 mm; standard implants, 2.91 ± 0.35 mm) or mean marginal bone loss (short implants, 1.2 ± 1.21-mm mesially and 1.36 ± 1.47-mm distally; standard implants: 0.63 ± 0.80-mm mesially and 0.78 ± 0.70-mm distally).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the success rate of short dental implants was comparable to that of standard-sized implants. Consequently, it can be claimed that the long-term success of short dental implants does not differ significantly from the long-term success of standard implants.

The Use of Allograft Bone in the Lateral Approach of Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

Background and Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficiency of using allografts for sinus lift. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was written under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendation of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Three electronic databases were screened until October 2023. The risk of bias was assessed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed for median bone volume and implant survival rate. Results: From 321 articles retrieved, 7 articles were included in this review. A comparison between freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) and deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) for mean bone volume indicated a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.17 [-0.69, 0.36] (95% confidence interval (CI)), p = 0.53. For implant survival rate, a comparison was made between FDBA and autogenous bone indicating a risk ratio (RR) of 1.00 [0.96, 1.05] (95% CI), p = 1.00. Conclusions: The available evidence suggested that allograft bone can be used in sinus lift procedures. The results obtained are insufficient to compare with other types of bone graft, requiring a longer follow-up time. Future clinical trials are needed in order to evaluate the advantages of using allograft bone.

Restoratively driven planning for implants in the posterior maxilla - Part 2: implant planning, biomechanics and prosthodontic planning a proposed prosthodontic complexity index

Restoratively driven implant planning in the posterior maxilla requires a comprehensive understanding of the anatomical and physiological changes of the alveolar bone following tooth extraction and sinus augmentation. As a part of restoratively driven planning, alveolar bone, inter-arch relationships, proposed crown-implant ratio and anticipated non-axial loading should be assessed pre-operatively. This helps determine the prosthodontic and surgical aspects of implant treatment, such as prosthesis design, implant number, implant angulation, implant length and the necessity for additional bone grafting procedures. However, currently no implant planning classification is restoratively driven and include these important prosthodontic considerations. Therefore, a new index - the Posterior Maxilla Prosthodontic Index - is defined to encourage restoratively driven implant planning in the posterior maxilla.

Biomechanical behavior analysis of four types of short implants with different placement depths using the finite element method

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The clinical application of short implants has been increasing. However, studies on the marginal bone loss of short implants are sparse, and clinicians often choose short implants based on their own experience rather than on scientific information.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the microstrain-stress distribution in the peri-implant bone and implant components for 4 types of short implants at different placement depths of platform switching.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

By using short implants as prototypes, 4 short implant models were 1:1 modeled. The diameter and length of the implants were 5×5, 5×6, 6×5, and 6×6 mm. The restoration was identical for all implants. Three different depths of implant platform switching were set: equicrestal, 0.5-mm subcrestal, and 1-mm subcrestal. The models were then assembled and assigned an occlusal force of 200 N (vertical or 30-degree oblique). A finite element analysis was carried out to evaluate the maximum equivalent elastic strain and von Mises stress in the bone and the stress distribution in the implant components.

RESULTS

The 5×5 implant group showed the largest intraosseous strain (21.921×10³ με). A 1-mm increase in implant diameter resulted in a 17.1% to 37.4% reduction in maximum intraosseous strain when loaded with oblique forces. The strain in the bone tended to be much smaller than the placement depth at the equicrestal and 0.5-mm subcrestal positions than that at the 1-mm subcrestal position, especially under oblique force loading, with an increase of approximately 37.4% to 81.8%. In addition, when the cortical bone thickness was less than 4 mm, 5×6 implants caused significantly higher intraosseous stresses than 6×6 implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Large implant diameters, rather than long implants, led to reduced intraosseous strain, especially under oblique loading. Regarding the implant platform switching depth, the short implant showed small intraosseous strains when the platform switching depth was equicrestal or 0.5-mm subcrestal.

Short versus standard implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Short implants are proposed as a less invasive alternative with fewer complications than standard implants in combination with sinus lift. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to state the efficacy of placing short implants (≤ 6 mm) compared to standard-length implants (≥ 8 mm) performing sinus lift techniques in patients with edentulous posterior atrophic jaws. Efficacy will be evaluated through analyzing implant survival (IS) and maintenance of peri-implant bone (MBL).

METHODS

Screening process was done using the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE by PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Oral Health, and Web of Science (WOS). The articles included were randomized controlled trials. Risk of bias was evaluated according to The Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Weighted means were calculated. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I²). A random-effects model was applied. Secondary outcomes such as surgical time, patient satisfaction, mucositis and peri-implantitis, pain, and swelling were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (597 patients and 901 implants) were evaluated. IS was 1.02 risk ratio, ranging from 1.00 to 1.05 (CI 95%) (p = 0.09), suggesting that IS was similar when both techniques were used. MBL was higher in patients with standard-length implants plus sinus lift elevation (p = 0.03). MBL was 0.11 (0.01-0.20) mm (p = 0.03) and 0.23 (0.07-0.39) mm (p = 0.005) before and after 1 year of follow-up, respectively, indicating that the marginal bone loss is greater for standard-length implants.

DISCUSSION

Within the limitations of the present study, as relatively small sample size, short dental implants can be used as an alternative to standard-length implants plus sinus elevation in cases of atrophic posterior maxilla. Higher MBL was observed in the groups where standard-length implants were used, but implant survival was similar in both groups. Moreover, with short implants, it was observed a reduced postoperative discomfort, minimal invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced costs.

CLINICAL CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The low MBL promoted by short implants does contribute to a paradigm shift from sinus grafting with long implants to short implants. Further high-quality long-term studies are required to confirm these findings.

Short Implants versus Longer Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with a Post-Loading Follow-Up Duration of 5 Years

This study compared the outcome of fixed prostheses supported by short implants (<8 mm) and longer implants (≥8 mm) with an elevated sinus floor after 5 years of follow-up. The literature searches were performed electronically and manually in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant articles published from 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2020. We selected eligible studies using inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. From 1688 identified studies, five randomized controlled trials were included. Between the short implant group and the control group, the implant failure-related pooled risk ratio (RR) was 3.64 (p = 0.07). The RR for technical complications was 2.61 (p = 0.0002), favoring longer implants. Marginal peri-implant bone loss after 1 and 5 years of function showed statistically significant less bone loss at short implants (1 year: mean difference = 0.21 mm; p < 0.00001; 5 years: mean difference = 0.26 mm; p = 0.02). The implant failure and the biological failure of both groups were similar after 5 years of follow-up. Short implants could be an alternative to long implants with an elevated sinus floor for atrophic maxillae in aging populations. Studies with larger trials and longer periods of follow-up (10 years) remain essential.

Assessment of anterior loop of mandibular canal and its implication in implant therapy

Context:

Precise identification of anatomic structures is imperative for presurgical planning for implant installation to ensure effectiveness of procedures, especially in the region of mental foramen, and to prevent iatrogenic complications.

Aims:

This study aimed to assess the presence of anterior loop of mandibular canal and its approximation to the alveolar crest using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and Methods:

CBCT scans of the patients scheduled for implant therapy in the region of mental foramen were retrospectively analyzed for the presence of anterior loop of mandibular canal. Findings were compared based upon gender and side of the mandible. Distance between the most prominent part of anterior loop of mandibular canal and the alveolar crest was measured.

Results:

Anterior loop of the mandibular canal was identified 66.8% of hemimandibles analyzed with the highest prevalence in the fourth decade of life. Males and females exhibited predilection toward the right and left side, respectively. The presence of anterior loop of mandibular canal is associated with reduced distance between the neurovascular bundle and alveolar crest jeopardizing the placement of standard length dental implant.

Conclusion:

The current study emphasizes an increased need for precise identification and preservation of anterior loop of mandibular canal in the third and fourth decades of life, especially in females.

Long-term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA)

AIM

To evaluate the long-term survivals of short implants and to investigate the association of the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) with the occurrence of biological complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was designed as a cohort study with a median follow-up of 10.0 years. Patients who had received 6-mm implants were reviewed and assigned into low-, moderate- and high-risk groups (Group L, M and H) based on the IDRA tool. The implant survival, biological complications, soft tissue condition, hardware complications and marginal bone loss (MBL) were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were performed for survival analysis.

RESULTS

A hundred and ten patients were included. The overall cumulative survival rate was 90.9% (L:100.0%, M: 93.3% and H: 80.6%). A higher risk profile was significantly associated with a decreased implant survival (hazard ratio: 4.11, 95% CI: 1.17-14.36, p<0.05). Higher risk profile (hazard ratio: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.32-5.25, p<0.05) was a potential risk factor for biological complications. At follow-up, significant differences in bleeding index, modified plaque index and peri-implant probing depth were found among groups (p<0.01). No significant difference was found in MBL.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable long-term clinical outcomes could be achieved after 10 years for short implants. Despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in MBL, patients with a high-risk profile of IDRA seem to be at greater risk of implant loss and biological complications.

Professional and patient-reported outcomes of two surgical approaches for implant-supported single-crown restoration: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To test whether there is a difference in professional and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) after single-crown restoration supported by short implants (SI) (6 mm) compared with standard length implants (SLI) (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) after 1 year of functional implant loading.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty patients were randomly allocated to SI or SLI/MSFA. PROM included Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire and subjective assessment of the peri-implant soft tissue (A), implant crown (B), implant function (C) and overall implant treatment outcome (D) using visual analogue scale (VAS). Professional assessment included pink aesthetic score (PES) and white aesthetic score (WES).

RESULTS

No significant differences in professional or PROM between the two treatment modalities were revealed at any time point (p > .05). OHIP-14 score decreased at baseline and 1 year after functional implant loading compared with preoperative measurements indicating improved quality of life with both treatment modalities. The 1-year mean VAS score was 9.4 (A), 9.3 (B), 9.6 (C) and 9.3 (D) for SI compared with 9.3 (A), 9.6 (B), 9.7 (C) and 9.2 (D) for SLI. The 1-year mean PES/WES scores were 11.3 and 8.1 for SI compared with 11.2 and 8.1 for SLI/MSFA.

CONCLUSIONS

Prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior part of the maxilla with SI or SLI/MSFA revealed no significant differences in professional and PROM after 1 year of implant loading.

Short versus standard implants associated with sinus floor elevation: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple outcomes

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Bone loss in the edentulous posterior maxilla complicates dental implant placement. In spite of the evidence available, there is continued uncertainty about the benefit of short implants for different outcomes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the existing evidence for short and standard implants in association with sinus floor elevation regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and complications by using an umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analysis of interventional studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing short implants and standard implants associated with sinus floor elevation. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. Outcomes were categorized and tabulated to assess effectiveness. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

From 2011 studies, 7 systematic reviews (66 studies) were included as per the eligibility criteria. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for implant survival (risk ratio=1.08; P=.79), and the qualitative analysis did not show differences for prosthetic outcomes. Standard implants were associated with fewer prosthetic complications in the quantitative analysis (risk ratio=3.27; P<.01), but no difference was found between the treatments in the qualitative analysis. Short implants showed reduced marginal bone loss (0.98 ±0.12 mm; mean difference=-0.22; P<.01) and better biologic outcomes (risk ratio=0.16; P<.01). Patient satisfaction was similar for both groups, whereas costs and time for the procedure favored short implants. The quality of the evidence was graded as "critically low" (57.1% of the reviews) and "low." There was a high certainty of evidence for implant survival, whereas marginal bone loss and complications had moderate certainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Short implants had a better or equal performance compared with standard implants for all outcomes assessed. However, assumptions were based on reviews with low or critically low quality of the evidence, suggesting the development of high-quality systematic reviews in this field.

Posterior jaws rehabilitation with < 7mm-short implants. A review

INTRODUCTION

The results with shorter and shorter implants have been revolutionizing the implantology scenario and are worthy of being well-analyzed and understood. This review aims to add further knowledge about the last 10-years observation period on < 7mm-short implants in the posterior atrophic jaws, better defining the indication of their use.

METHODS

From a Medline database research, systematic reviews, controlled and no- controlled trials (CT, n-CT) with ≥ 3years-follow-ups on <7 mm / ≥ 5mm-short implants (group A), and clinical studies with ≥ 1year-follow-up on 4mm-short implants (group B) were considered. The outcomes, in terms of implant survival rate (SR), marginal bone loss (MBL), and complications were analyzed according to the duration of follow-ups, implant site (maxilla and mandible), type of prosthesis (single crown or splinted units), vertically impaired or normal sites.

RESULTS

Thirty-four trials (28 for group A and six for group B) were selected. Group A: a mean follow up of 5,8 (3-10) years came out; pre-and post-loading SR range was 94.4- 100% and 89.6-100%, respectively; the range of MBL was 0.12-1.49; 50% of CT found less statistically significant surgical complications in comparison with standard implants (ST) in reconstructed sites, while major prosthetic problems were recorded with short -implants (SH) in 37.5% of CT; in no atrophied sites, a mean SR range of 86.7-100 % vs. 88-100 % and a total bone loss of 2 vs.1.6 for SH vs.ST emerged. Group B: the overall mean follow-up period was 2,3 years, and the pre-and post- SR ranges were 93-100 % and 87.5-100 %, respectively. The MBL range was 0.02- 0.63 mm. All RCT reported significantly fewer surgical complications with SH than with ST in reconstructed mandibles within one year. No prosthetic complications were reported for up to 5 years using no pontics or cantilevers fixed bridges.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar or even better results for SH than ST in terms of post-loading SR and MBL came out for < 7mm/ ≥ 5mm-short implants in atrophic bone regardless of the prosthetic solutions, with less surgical complications but a few more prosthetic problems; the good results up to 5 years for 4mm-short implants in mandibles are associated with splinted and no-risk prosthetic solutions.

Accuracy of intentionally tilted implant placement in the maxilla using dynamic navigation: a retrospective clinical analysis

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the accuracy of dynamic navigation for the placement of intentionally tilted implants in the posterior maxilla. The study included 12 patients with edentulism or continuous multiple tooth loss, who had 48 implants inserted under dynamic navigation guidance in the posterior maxilla. Twenty-four implants near maxillary sinuses were intentionally tilted. The average platform deviation was 1.3 ± 0.4 mm (range 0.8-2.3 mm), apex deviation was 1.1 ± 0.5 mm (range 0.2-2.3 mm), and axis deviation was 3.1 ± 1.0° (range 1.8-6.7°). The other 24 implants were axially positioned. The average platform deviation was 1.5 ± 0.5 mm (range 0.7-3.1 mm), apex deviation was 1.3 ± 0.7 mm (range 0.5-3.1 mm), and axis deviation was 3.2 ± 1.5° (range 1.5-7.7°). There was no significant difference in platform deviation, apex deviation, or axis deviation between the tilted implants and implants in the axial position (P > 0.05). This analysis indicates that a dynamic navigation system can be used as a method of guidance to place intentionally tilted implants as accurately as axially positioned implants in the posterior maxilla, thereby preventing damage to the maxillary sinuses and the need to graft bone.

A 4 mm-Long Implant Rehabilitation in the Posterior Maxilla with Dynamic Navigation Technology: A Case Report after a Three-Years Post-Loading Follow-Up

The use of short (<8 mm long) and ultra-short (<6 mm long) implants allows the prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior ridges of the jaws avoiding reconstructive procedures. Nevertheless, this approach requires vast experience to ensure the primary stability of the fixture in a correct position. Computer-aided implantology (CAI) achieves better results than the free-hand one in terms of placement accuracy, reducing the surgical risks and the operative timings. Dynamic navigation (DN) allows the surgeon to track the position and movements of the drill in real-time on the CT imaging data set. It is more versatile than the computed static system, enabling the operator to change the guidance coordinates according to the intra-operative feedbacks. A mono-edentulous upper right first molar site was rehabilitated with a four mm-long implant to avoid reconstructive techniques, drastically rejected by the patients. The case was managed within a DN protocol considering the minimal available bone and the prosthetic demands. The phases of this procedure were strictly documented up to a 3-year follow-up. No intra-operative problems occurred, and adequate primary stability of the implant was obtained. The prosthetic loading was carried out within only six weeks without any complications. No variation of the baseline clinical scenario as evidenced clinically and radiographically at the end of follow-up. No similar cases are reported in the literature.

Clinical performance of short versus standard dental implants in vertically augmented bone: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question: What do we know so far about the clinical performance of short implants (≤ 7 mm) when compared to standard length implants in vertically augmented bone, as well as which is the overall confidence of the systematic reviews (SRs) about this topic?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An overview of SRs was conducted. The searches were performed in six electronic databases and grey literature. SRs about short (≤ 7 mm) versus standard dental implants performance in vertically augmented bone were included. The assessed outcomes were marginal bone loss (MBL), implant survival (IS), prosthetic (PC) and biological complications (BC), costs, surgical time, and patient satisfaction. AMSTAR 2 was used to evaluate the overall confidence of included SRs.

RESULTS

Thirteen SRs were included. Nine of twelve SRs reported a lower MBL for the short implant group. All the included SRs showed no difference in the IS between groups. A higher rate of BC was reported for standard-length implants in four out of five SRs. No differences regarding PC were reported in four of five SRs. Information related to patient preference, cost, and surgery time were underreported. The confidence evaluation of the SRs was stratified as low for five SRs and critically low for eight SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

In an overall low-to-very low confidence levels, short implants appear to perform better in the mid-term (up to 5 years) than standard dental implants associated with vertical bone augmentation regarding MBL and BC, but they have a similar performance regarding IS rates and PC. There is an imperative need to improve the methodological quality of SRs, and efforts should focus on conducting RCTs to broaden the knowledge on this topic.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Short implants could represent a viable, simpler, and less invasive treatment when available bone height is limited.

Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to test the H0-hypothesis of no difference in the clinical and radiographical treatment outcome of single-crown restorations supported by short implants compared with standard length implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) after 1 year of functional implant loading. Forty patients with partial edentulism in the posterior part of the maxilla were randomly allocated to treatment involving single-crown restorations supported by short implants or standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. Clinical and radiographical evaluation were used to assess survival of suprastructures and implants, peri-implant marginal bone loss (PIMBL), biological, and mechanical complications.

RESULTS

Both treatment modalities were characterized by 100% survival of suprastructures and implants after 1 year. Mean PIMBL was 0.60 mm with short implants compared with 0.51 mm with standard length implants after 1 year of functional loading. There were no statistically significant differences in survival of suprastructure and implants, PIMBL, and mechanical complications between the two treatment modalities. However, a higher incidence of biological complications was associated with standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that single-crown restorations supported by short implants seems to be comparable with standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. However, long-term studies are needed before final conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.Gov ID: NCT04518020 . Date of registration: August 14, 2020, retrospectively registered.

Ultra-short versus standard-length dental implants in conjunction with osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The ability to restore missing teeth with dental implants is dictated by the available bone and by the presence of anatomical structures. The potential to insert ultrashort implants avoids additional surgical procedures and its inherent complications. The last European Association of Dental Implantologists consensus in 2016 defined ultrashort implants and standard-length dental implants as <6 and >8 mm, respectively.

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to investigate whether single standing ultrashort dental implants (US) could provide a viable therapeutic alternative to osteotome mediated sinus floor elevation in combination with standard-length dental implants (SL) 10 mm in posterior maxillary rehabilitation with reduced bone height.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted as a prospective parallel group controlled clinical trial with a 12 month follow-up, where 48 implants were randomized into two groups; US-group (5.5 mm) and SL-group (10 mm) implants placed with osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation. Crestal bone loss (CBL) was defined as the study's primary outcome, while implant survival, buccal bone thickness, implant stability, probing depth, gingival recession, and adverse effects were assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Mesial CBL was 1.13 ± 0.52 mm in SL- and 0.72 ± 0.52 mm in US-group (P = .021), while distal CBL was 1.44 ± 0.72 mm in SL- and 0.91 ± 0.69 mm in US-group at 12 months (P = .0179). Regarding implant stability, probing depth, and gingival recession there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Regarding implants' survival, three implants were lost in the US-while only one implant was lost in the SL-group (P = .6085; Fisher's exact test). Nevertheless, the ultrashort implants were associated with a tripling of the failure rate and uncertainty where the true failure rate is uncertain (relative risk 3.0; confidence interval 0.3-26.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the current trial's limitations, US-appear appear promising as they are associated less postoperative discomfort, minimal invasiveness and less CBL. However, larger sample size is required to determine whether the ultrashort have an acceptable survival rate.

A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation

Extra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P  = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: - 0.22, CI - 0.277 to - 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI - 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

Short implants (≤6mm) as an alternative treatment option to maxillary sinus lift

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate survival rate of short dental implants placed in the posterior area of the maxilla. The electronic literature search of studies published between January 1, 2010 and February 29, 2020 was performed using specific word combinations. The outcome was to meta-analyse the implant survival rate (ISR). The search generated 238 potential studies. After screening procedures, only nine randomized controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. ISR of short implants ranged from 91.9% to 100%, while standard-length implants ISR ranged from 82.9% to 100% with a follow-up from 1 to 5 years in function. The risk ratio difference was 1.24 (95% confidence interval: 0.63-2.45, P=0.52) for short dental implants failure when compared with standard dental implants, and was not statistically significant. Based on the evidence of the included studies, short implants (≤6mm) reported high survival rates over short to medium follow-up in posterior maxilla, but the long-term success is as yet not demonstrated.

Dynamic Navigation for Zygomatic Implants: A Case Report about a Protocol with Intraoral Anchored Reference Tool and an Up-To-Date Review of the Available Protocols

Dynamic Navigation is a computer-aided technology that allows the surgeon to track the grip instruments while preparing the implant site in real time based on radiological anatomy and accurate pre-operative planning. The support of this technology to the zygoma implant placement aims to reduce the risks and the errors associated with this complex surgical and prosthetic treatment. Various navigation systems are available to clinicians currently, distinguished by handling, reliability, and the associated economic and biological benefits and disadvantages. The present paper reports on the different protocols of dynamic navigations following a standard workflow in correlation with zygomatic implant supported rehabilitations and describes a case of maxillary atrophy successfully resolved with this technology. An innovative and minimally invasive dynamic navigation system, with the use of an intraoral anchored trust marker plate and a patient reference tool, has been adopted to support the accurate insertion of four zygomatic implants, which rapidly resolved maxillary atrophy from a 75-year-old male system. This approach provided an optimal implant placement accuracy reducing surgical invasiveness.

Short Implants: An Answer to a Challenging Dilemma?

The purpose of this article is not to discuss the success of short dental implants versus standard/long dental implants, but to compare short dental implants with standard/long dental implants in areas that necessitated adjunctive bone grafting or augmentation procedures and as a way to avoid the need for advanced surgical procedures and their associated risks. It can be concluded that short dental implants are a viable alternative in sites that would have required additional complex and costly augmentation procedures. Short dental implants resulted in comparable survival and success rates with faster, less expensive treatment with fewer surgical complications and morbidity.

Prospective, Clinical Pilot Study with Eleven 4-Mm Extra-Short Implants Splinted to Longer Implants for Posterior Maxilla Rehabilitation

In many clinical situations, rehabilitation with implants in the posterior maxillary region is complicated by limited bone availability. In this context, the use of 4 mm long implants (known as extra-short implants) may be used thanks to the concept of osseointegration enhancement. It has been demonstrated that short implants offer an alternative to the regeneration procedures involved in placing longer implants in areas where bone height is compromised. This prospective pilot study tested a treatment protocol in which 11 extra-short (4 mm) implants were splinted to 11 mesially placed longer (8 mm) implants in the posterior maxillary regions of partially edentulous patients, without using supplementary bone regeneration procedures. Eleven patients were included in this single cohort study. The clinical performance of the extra-short implants was assessed during a two-year follow-up period, obtaining a 100% survival rate and mean bone loss of 0.3 mm. Implant stability measured by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at the time of placement was 54.9 ± 4.9, increasing to 77.0 ± 2.6 at 24 months. The study demonstrated the gradual consolidation of osseointegration in bone of less-than-ideal quality in the posterior maxillary region. The results obtained show that a partially edentulous maxilla with reduced bone height may be rehabilitated by using an extra-short implant splinted to a mesial implant of 8mm length or longer. Despite the small sample size, this pilot study observed that extra-short implants achieved adequate bone stability and clinical performance after a 24-month follow-up.

Short vs. Standard Length Cone Morse Connection Implants: An In Vitro Pilot Study in Low Density Polyurethane Foam

The aim of the investigation was to evaluate the insertion torque, pull-out torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ) of short implants (SI) and standard length implants (ST) inserted into linearly elastic and constitutive isotropic symmetry polyurethane foam blocks. Short dental titanium implants with a Cone Morse connection and a conical shape (test implants: Test Implant A—diameter 5.5 mm and length 6 mm) (Test Implant B—diameter 5.5 mm and length 5 mm) were used for the present in vitro investigation. ST implants (4 mm diameter and 10 mm length), with a Cone Morse connection and a conical shape, were used as Control Implant A and as Control Implants B. These two latter implants had a different macro design. A total of 20 implants (5 Test A, 5 Test B, 5 Control A and 5 Control B) were used for the present research. The results were similar when comparing the Test A and Test B implants. The test implants had very good stability in polyurethane 14.88–29.76 kgm3 density blocks. The insertion torque values were very high for both types of test implant (25–32 Ncm on 14.88 kgm blocks, and up to 45 Ncm in 29.76 kgm3 blocks). The pull-out test values were very similar to the insertion torque values. The ISQ values were significantly high with 75–80 in 14.88 kgm3 blocks, and 78–83 in 29.76 kgm3 blocks. No differences were found in the values of the Control A and Control B implants. In both these implants, the insertion torque was quite low in the 14.88 kgm3 blocks (16–28 Ncm). Better results were found in the 29.76 kgm3 blocks. The pull-out values for these control implants were slightly lower than the insertion torque values. High ISQ values were found in both control implants (57–80). When comparing SI and ST implants, the SI had a similar if not better performance in low quality polyurethane foam blocks (14.88–29.76 kgm), corresponding to D3 and D4 bone.

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs 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 SYNTHESIS

Risks 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.

RESULTS

A 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).

CONCLUSIONS

For 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 NUMBER

The protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

Maxillary sinus floor elevation using Beta-Tricalcium-Phosphate (beta-TCP) or natural bone: same inflammatory response

Sinus elevation is a common procedure to increase bone volume in the atrophic maxilla to allow placement of dental implants. Autogenous bone is the gold standard but is limited in quantity and causes morbidity at the donor site. β-TCP is a synthetic biomaterial commonly used in that purpose. It appears to induce a poor inflammatory response. This study aimed to evaluate the degree of edema of the sinus mucosa after sinus lift surgery according to the type of biomaterial. Forty sinuses (20 patients) were included retrospectively and divided into 2 groups according to the biomaterial that was used: synthetic biomaterial (BTCP group), natural bone (BONE group). A control group (CTRL group) was constituted by the non-grafted maxillary sinuses. Twelve measurements per sinus were realized on pre- and post-operative computed tomography and averaged to provide the sinus membrane thickness value (SM.Th). SM.Th was thicker post-operatively in the BTCP and BONE groups in comparison with the CTRL group and in comparison with pre-operative measurements. No difference was found post operatively between the BTCP and BONE groups. We found that a synthetic biomaterial (β-TCP) induced the same degree of edema, and thus of inflammation, as natural bone. It constitutes therefore an interesting alternative to autogenous bone for maxillary sinus lifts.

A New Strategy Against Peri-Implantitis: Antibacterial Internal Coating

The bacterial biofilm formation in the oral cavity and the microbial activity around the implant tissue represent a potential factor on the interface between bone and implant fixture that could induce an inflammatory phenomenon and generate an increased risk for mucositis and peri-implantitis. The aim of the present clinical trial was to investigate the bacterial quality of a new antibacterial coating of the internal chamber of the implant in vivo at six months. The PIXIT implant (Edierre srl, Genova Italy) is prepared by coating the implant with an alcoholic solution containing polysiloxane oligomers and chlorhexidine gluconate at 1%. A total of 15 healthy patients (60 implants) with non-contributory past medical history (nine women and six men, all non-smokers, mean age of 53 years, ranging from 45-61 years) were scheduled to receive bilateral fixed prostheses or crown restorations supported by an implant fixture. No adverse effects and no implant failure were reported at four months. All experimental sites showed a good soft tissue healing at the experimental point times and no local evidence of inflammation was observed. Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) analysis on coated and uncoated implants showed a decrease of the bacterial count in the internal part of the implant chamber. The mean of total bacteria loading (TBL) detected in each PCR reaction was lower in treated implants (81038 units/reaction) compared to untreated implants (90057 units/reaction) (p < 0.01). The polymeric chlorhexydine coating of the internal chamber of the implant showed the ability to control the bacterial loading at the level of the peri-implant tissue. Moreover, the investigation demonstrated that the coating is able to influence also the quality of the microbiota, in particular on the species involved in the pathogenesis of peri-implantitis that are involved with a higher risk of long-term failure of the dental implant restoration.

Anatomical analyses for maxillary sinus floor augmentation with a lateral approach: A cone beam computed tomography study

BACKGROUND

Various anatomical references and structures should be analyzed prior approaching a surgery in the maxillary sinus. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the anatomical structures and references involved in sinus floor elevation with a lateral approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five patients planned for sinus floor elevation were included in the study. Eighty-eight maxillary sinuses were evaluated using cone beam computed tomographies (CBCTs). The nasal floor was used as main reference (X) and sinus mucosa width, bone crest height, palatal-nasal recess angle (PNR), sinus width at the level of the nasal floor, distance from the nasal floor to the base of the sinus (X-F), position of the posterior superior alveolar artery (PSAA height) and diameter (PSAA diameter), lateral bone wall width at 3mm (LW 3mm) and 9mm (LW 9mm) from the base of the sinus (F), patency of the ostium (OP), and presence and position of septa have been evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean dimensions and standard deviations were the following: mucosa thickness was 2.0±1.4mm, bone crest height 2.8±1.4mm, distance X-F 8.3±1.9mm, PNR angle 135.5±23.1, sinus width 12.6±4.2mm, X-F 8.3±1.9mm, PSAA height 14.4±2.9mm, PSAA diameter 1.1±0.4mm, LW 3mm 1.5±1.2, LW 9mm 1.3±0.6mm, OP 1.9±0.4mm. Septa were present in 19.3% of the sinuses evaluated and were located mostly in the molar region.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the analysis of the CBCT before sinus floor elevation allows the identification of anatomical structures and references that might be used for the planning of the surgical approach, aiming to improve the outcome of the treatment and to avoid possible complications.

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

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.

Peri-implant marginal bone loss rate pre- and post-loading: An exploratory analysis of associated factors

OBJECTIVES

To perform an exploratory analysis of factors influencing annual rates of peri-implant marginal bone loss (RBL) calculated over different time frames, at implants unaffected by peri-implantitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 154 implants from 86 patients were reviewed at 1.6-6.8 years after placement. Marginal bone levels (MBL) were assessed on intraoral radiographs at three time-points: immediately post-placement, time of loading, and least 1-year post-loading. RBLs (mm/year) were computed using these three time frames and corresponding MBL changes as: RBL placement-loading, RBL loading-review, RBL placement-review. Exploratory ordination of three RBLs, corresponding time durations, and 17 background factors were used for visualization. Hierarchical linear mixed-effects models (MEM) with predictor selection were applied to RBL outcomes. The correlation of actual MBL with MBLs predicted by RBL placement-loading and RBL loading-review was tested.

RESULTS

Median RBL placement-loading was 0.9 mm/year (IQR = 2.02), loading-review was 0.06 mm/year (IQR = 0.16), and overall RBL placement-review was 0.21 mm/year (IQR = 0.33). Among-patient variance was highest for RBL placement-loading (SD = 0.66). Longer time predicted lower RBL in all time frames. Shorter time of loading significantly predicted lower RBL placement-review. Augmentation predicted lower RBL placement-loading, while anterior location and older age predicted lower RBLs placement-loading placement-review. Only MBL projected using RBL placement-loading significantly correlated with actual MBL.

CONCLUSIONS

Exploratory analysis indicated RBL varied with the time duration used for calculation in pre- and post-loading, and overall periods. In each period, RBL declined with increasing time. Earlier loading predicted lower overall RBL. Higher pre-loading RBL predicted worse actual bone level.