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

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) in the posterior atrophic jaws: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at investigating implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) around extra-short implants. The impact of the loading protocol and of the use of an intermediate abutment was also evaluated, to explore possible differences in terms of the outcome measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with single or multiple mandibular or maxillary posterior edentulism rehabilitated using extra-short 5-6 mm long implants were included. Different prosthetic protocols were used. Clinical and radiological follow-up was 5 years. The outcomes measures were implant survival and MBL.

RESULTS

The analysis included 56 implants placed in 34 adults (12 males and 22 females; mean age 60 years, SD 11). Six implants failed during a median follow-up of 5 years and 4 of them were recorded in one patient at 2-year follow-up. The 5-year implant survival was 89% overall (87% in conventional and 94% in immediate loading). At univariate analysis, during follow-up immediate loading was associated with higher MBL (mean variation 0.21 mm, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.40; p = 0.02), while intermediate abutment was associated with lower MBL (mean variation -0.23 mm, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.09; p = 0.003). Multivariable analysis confirmed that immediate loading was associated with higher MBL.

CONCLUSION

Within its limitations, this study showed that extra-short implants under immediate loading conditions can be a reliable solution. The application of horizontal and vertical platform switching with the use of intermediate abutments seems to be able to contribute to the reduction of MBL.

A network meta-analysis comparing treatment modalities of short and long implants in the posterior maxilla with insufficient bone height

OBJECTIVE

Based on the critical role of implant length and placement timing in treatment success, this study aimed to compare clinical outcomes (implant failure, marginal bone loss, biological and mechanical complications) between short implants (4-8 mm) versus long implants (≥ 8 mm) with sinus floor elevation, and between delayed versus immediate placement of long implants in the posterior maxilla.

METHODS

This network meta-analysis was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023495027). Adhering to PRISMA-NMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed eligible studies from January 2014 to November 2024 was conducted across major databases, such as the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. The main focus of this NMA was to determine the rate of implant failure, as well as to assess marginal bone loss and the occurrence of biological and mechanical complications related to the implants.

RESULTS

Data from 17 studies, involving 1,076 patients and 1,751 implants, was collected and examined. Long implants have lower failure rates (OR = 1.26; 95% CI = 0.53, 3.00) and short dental implants showed a trend towards lower biological (OR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.19, 1.18) and mechanical (OR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.45, 1.94) complications rates, although this trend was not statistically significant. Additionally, compared to longer implants, short implants resulted in a significant reduction in marginal bone loss, regardless of whether long implants were immediately (MD=-0.17; 95%CI: -0.29, -0.05) or delayed (MD = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.05, 0.64) placed following sinus floor elevation. The analysis of cumulative ranking probabilities revealed that delayed placement of long implants with SFE demonstrated the highest efficacy in reducing implant failure (73.9%). SIs were found to excel in reducing marginal bone loss (88.7%) and biological complications (88.2%%), while short implants with SFE proved to be the most effective in preventing mechanical complications (66.0%%).

CONCLUSION

Short implants achieved comparable clinical outcomes to long implants with sinus floor elevation in posterior maxilla with limited vertical bone height. Given the limitations of the network meta-analysis and included studies, treatment selection should be individualized based on specific patient conditions.

Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10-mm dental implants in different clinical scenarios: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and quality of evidence grading

AIM

To systematically identify, synthesize and critically summarize the available scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding whether short (≤6 mm) perform as well as long (≥10 mm) implants regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complications in different clinical scenarios.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were applied. Results were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses assessed by trial sequential analyses.

RESULTS

Forty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included. Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5-year survival rates for ≤6-mm and ≥10-mm implants in non-augmented bone and full-mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6-mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift. Nevertheless, the evidence for 5-year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4-mm and 5-mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants. Marginal bone level and short- and long-term biologic or prosthetic complications were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate/high certainty/quality evidence from 5-year RCTs, implants ≤6 mm may be viable alternatives to ≥10-mm implants in either jaw in native bone and full-arch rehabilitation, and 6-mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.

Survival Rates of Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) Used as an Alternative to Longer (>6 mm) Implants for the Rehabilitation of Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review of RCTs

Short dental implants have been proposed as an alternative treatment option to bone regeneration procedures for the rehabilitation of resorbed alveolar ridges. The aim of this paper was to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (>6 mm) in atrophic alveolar ridges in terms of implant survival rates, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), prevalence of peri-implantitis and technical complications. A thorough electronic search was performed until September 2023. RCTs with follow-up of at least 1-year post-loading comparing short implants with rough surfaces to longer implants in the posterior jaws of systemically and periodontally healthy, partially edentulous adults were considered. Studies with incomplete information on the number of patients, follow-up or definition of "short implants" were excluded. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used for Risk of bias assessment. Fixed-effects meta-analysis of the selected studies was applied to compare the outcome variables. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed, on the basis of within-study comparisons. In total, 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis and incorporated 408 short implants and 475 longer implants inserted in 317 and 388 patients, respectively. The survival rates of longer implants in pristine or augmented bone were significantly increased compared to short implants (95%CI: 2-5%, p < 0.001). Standard-length implants displayed increased, although non-statistically significant MBL (95%CI: -0.17-0.04, p > 0.05), and prevalence of peri-implantitis (95%CI: 0-5%, p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between short and long implants in terms of technical complications (implant-level 95%CI: -4-6%, p > 0.05). Short implants represent a promising alternative treatment option for the rehabilitation of posterior jaws to avoid additional bone augmentation procedures. Nonetheless, they should be selected cautiously due to a potentially limited survival rate compared to longer implants. A major limitation of this study is the variability in the included studies regarding sample size, patient profile, type of bone, loading protocol, definition of peri-implantitis, among others. This study received no external funding. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023485514).

Resorption Rates of Bone Graft Materials after Crestal Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation and Its Influencing Factors

The aim of this study is to analyze the resorption rate of bone graft materials after crestal sinus floor elevation, study its influencing factors, and improve the long-term success rate of implants after crestal maxillary sinus floor elevation. Measurement and analysis were conducted at six postoperative timepoints (0 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, and 30 months) using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data on 31 patients from the Chenghuaxinguanghua Dental Clinic who underwent crestal maxillary sinus floor elevation, involving 38 graft sites. The materials resorption rates of the bone graft height (BH) and bone graft width (BW) were assessed. BH and BW resorption rates followed the same trend (p = 0.07), with BH and BW resorption rates decreasing with time (rBH = -0.32, p < 0.01; rBW = -0.18, p < 0.01), and were maximal in the 0-6 month interval, with BH and BW resorption rates of 3.42%/mth and 3.03%/mth, respectively. The average monthly BH and BW resorption rates in the 6-12 month interval rapidly decreased to 1.75%/mth and 1.29%/mth, respectively. The monthly BH and BW resorption rates in the 12-30 month intervals stabilized at 1.45%/mth (p > 0.05) and 1.22%/mth (p > 0.05), respectively. The higher the initial bone graft height (BH0), the lower the BH resorption rates (rBH = -0.98, p < 0.05), and the BW resorption rate was different for different graft sites (p = 0.01). The resorption rates of bone graft materials implanted through crestal maxillary sinus floor elevation decreased rapidly within the first 12 months post operation and remained stable after 12 months. BH0 was identified as a significant factor influencing the resorption rates of bone graft materials. These results could suggest dentists should pay attention to the trend of resorption rates over time and carefully manage the initial height of bone grafts and inspire the research of new bone grafting materials for crestal maxillary sinus floor elevation.

Outcome Difference between Short and Longer Dental Implants Placed Simultaneously with Alveolar Bone Augmentation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide detailed insights into the clinical performance of short and longer dental implants placed simultaneously with bone augmentation.

Material and Methods

The search for literature was performed across MEDLINE (PubMed), ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library databases, adhering to specific selection criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only articles published in English between 2014 and 2024 were considered for data collection. Primary outcomes were survival rate (SR), marginal bone loss (MBL) and complications. Clinical outcomes were as follows: bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal pocket depth (PPD), and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Quality and risk of bias assessment were evaluated by the Critical Appraisal Checklist tool for randomized controlled trials developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

Results

A total of 14678 articles were screened, with 9 meeting the inclusion criteria and being utilized for this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 495 patients with 984 implants (491 short and 493 longer implants) showing a SR of 93.91% for the short implants and 91.83% for the longer implants. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant difference between short implants and longer implants simultaneously placed with alveolar bone augmentation in relation to MBL (-0.513 mm, 95% CI = -0.93 to -0.096; P = 0.02), and in PPD (-0.247, 95% CI = -0.515 to 0.022; P = 0.07).

Conclusions

When comparing the results of treatment with short and longer dental implants combined with alveolar bone augmentation, short implants showed better clinical results regarding the parameters of survival rate, marginal bone loss and complications.

An epidemiological qualitative/quantitative SWOT-AHP analysis in order to highlight the positive or critical aspects of dental implants: A pilot study

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, dental implants are increasing in popularity due to their high success rate, demonstrated functionality, and aesthetic treatment results. Scientific research is very active in proposing improvements in the quality and survival of implants, taking into consideration various aspects. The objective of this study was to provide a holistic epidemiologic view of the state of dental implants, using a systematic approach based on a multimethod SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis and AHP (analytical hierarchical process) qualitative-quantitative analysis to identify the characteristics that can determine their success or failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study used the hybrid method of SWOT-AHP.

RESULTS

Analysis of the results showed that among strengths, the skill of the dentist was considered the most important factor, followed by the success of dental implants in the old people; among weaknesses, bruxism and chronic diseases were highlighted; for opportunities, biomechanical behavior, in terms of good mechanical strength and good tribological resistance to chemical and physical agents in the oral cavity, were considered the most important factors; finally, among threats, medical liability and biomechanical problems had equal weight.

CONCLUSIONS

This study applied a multimethod SWOT-AHP approach to bring out favorable or critical evidence on the topic of dental implants. In accordance with the result of the strategic vector identified in the Twisting zone Adjustment type section, showed that implant surgery is a widespread technique but always needs improvement to increase the likelihood of success and reduce the complications that can lead to implant failure.

Extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) in atrophic and non-atrophic sites to support screw-retained full-arch restoration: a retrospective clinical study

PURPOSE

Increasing scientific evidence support extending the application of short dental implants to non-atrophic dental arches. The purpose of this study has been the evaluation of extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) that were placed in atrophic and non-atrophic anatomical sites to support the same prosthesis.

METHODS

For that, a retrospective study was conducted by including complete dentures that were solely supported by extra-short implants in the maxilla and/or the mandible. Clinical data about patients, implants, anatomy, and prosthesis were obtained. Statistical analysis was performed to assess implant- and prosthesis-survival, changes in the marginal bone level and prosthetic complications.

RESULTS

A total of 87 implants in 15 screw-retained complete dentures were assessed. None of the prostheses nor the extra-short implant failed during the follow-up of 27.2 ± 15.4 months. The changes in the mesial and distal marginal bone level were + 0.15 ± 0.51 mm and + 0.11 ± 0.50 mm, respectively. Comparing the implants according to the availability of sufficient bone to place longer implants, indicated the absence of significant differences in the changes of the mesial marginal bone level. However, the changes in the distal marginal bone level showed a statistically significant difference in favor of implants that were placed in non-atrophic sites. Two events of screw loosening were reported that were resolved by retightening the screws.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant- and prosthesis-related outcomes support the use of extra-short implants in atrophic and non-atrophic site to support complete prosthesis.

Single-crown restorations in premolar-molar regions: short (≤ 6.5) vs longer implants: retrospective cohort study

Purpose

To compare the survival, changes in marginal bone level and prosthetic complications rate of short (≤ 6.5 mm) and longer implants (≥ 7.5) supporting a single-crown restoration in the maxillary/mandibular premolar or molar region.

Methods

This cohort study was conducted following the STROBE statement recommendations for observational studies. Clinical outcomes of 88 short implants in 78 patients and 88 long implants in 88 patients were examined. All the implants had been placed by the same surgeon and restored following the same prosthetic concept; using a transepithelial abutment (intermediate abutment) and a screw retained restoration.

Results

All the implants were in function after the follow-up period since insertion (median: 31 months; range 11 to 84 for SiG vs median: 35 months; range: 6–117 for CG; p = 0.139). No statistical differences (p = 0.342) were observed related to prosthetic complications (screw loosening 2/88 vs 5/88 CG, ceramic chipping 1/88 vs 0/88, temporary crown resin chipping 1/88 vs 0/88 for SiG and CG, respectively) or related to marginal bone level (Mesial or Distal MBL ≥ 2 mm in 1/88 implants for SiG vs 3/88 for CG; p = 0.312).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, no survival differences have been observed between short implants and longer implants in single-crown restorations in posterior maxilla/mandible.

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.

The role of folded fibular flap in patients' reconstruction of mandibular defects: a retrospective clinical study

This study has analyzed 41 patients with mandibular ameloblastoma who underwent a partial mandibulectomy and reconstruction by folding the free fibular flap. In the preoperative and postoperative (6 months and 24 months after surgery), the Quality of Life (QOL) of these patients was assessed by using the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UW-QOL) and the medical outcome study short form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires. SPSS 20.0 statistical software was used to conduct statistical analysis on the base data of the two groups of patients. Independent sample t test was conducted for sf-36 and UW-QOL scores at two time points in each group. The SF-36 survey showed that body pain (54.54 ± 8.10), general health (55.27 ± 7.54), and health changes (58.29 ± 9.60) decreased significantly at 6 months after surgery, but the mean score at 24 months after surgery all exceeded the preoperational level. At 24 months after the surgery, the vitality (80.41 ± 3.74), social function (81.61 ± 4.07), emotional role (82.39 ± 4.07), psychological health (81.66 ± 4.37) and total score (704.00 ± 31.53) all returned to the preoperative level, which was statistically significant compared with 6 months after surgery. However, there was no significant difference compared with the preoperative level. The UW-QOL survey showed that chewing (56.68 ± 7.23), speech (54.54 ± 7.7) and taste (62.29 ± 10.15) have significantly changed at 6 months after the surgery, and the difference was statistically significant at 24 months after surgery. Saliva generation decreased slightly (80.76 ± 3.35) at 6 months after surgery, but quickly returned to the preoperative level (81.59 ± 4.06). The total score of the patients almost recovered to the preoperative level at 24 months after surgery. The folded the fibular flap can not only repair the defects of soft tissue and bone tissue, but also restore the height of the alveolar ridge to, avoid the imbalance of crown and root ratio after implantation and reduce the occurrence of peri-implant inflammation, so that a true functional reconstruction can be realized.

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.