Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book Here

Book Description
BackgroundImplant-supported rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior jaws can be a challenging situation due to a relevant atrophy of the residual bone. An alternative approach to bone regenerative procedures is the use of short implants (intrabony implant length greater than or equal to 6 mm). It represents a less-invasive treatment with growing evidence of acceptable long-term survival rates.AimTo evaluate the survival and the marginal bone loss of 5 mm and 6 mm short implants supporting conventionally and immediately non functionally loaded fixed rehabilitations. Data are presented at 1 and 2-year follow-up from the prosthetic loading.Materials and Methods36 patients were consecutively included. Inclusion criteria were the absence of one or more maxillary or mandibular molar and premolar associated to alveolar bone atrophy (height between 6 mm and 8 mm, width at least 8 mm). Fifty-six 5mm and 6mm short implants were positioned (of these, 17 implants immediately non functionally loaded in 13 patients). Implants were positioned subcrestally and were treated with 4.1 mm immediate platform switching applied to the cover screw if submerged, healing screw or prosthetic abutment when not submerged or immediately loaded. Implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL) were measured at 1 and 2-year follow-up from the prosthetic loading. Anatomical crown to implant (C/I) ratio was measured as well. The correlations between MBL and the use of low profile abutments, C/I ratio and single/multiple units restorations were assessed using mixed statistical models.ResultatsThe analysis included 11 males and 25 females (median age 62 years, IQR 54-68). Loading was immediate in 17 implants (30%). Low profile abutment was used in 18 implants (32%). Mean C/I ratio was 2.5 (SD 0.6). Implant-based survival was 96% at 1 year (immediate loading 94%; conventional loading 97%) and 88% at 2 years (immediate loading 94%; conventional loading 85%). 4 of these implant failures occurred in 1 patient between the first and the second year after conventional loading. Mean MBL was 0.17 mm (SD 0.30) at 1 year and 0.22 (SD (0.33) at 2 years. MBL at 1 year was not associated with immediate loading (mean difference 0.06 mm, 95%CI -0.25 to 0.13; p=0.54) vs traditional loading. MBL at 2 year was not associated with immediate loading (mean difference 0.06 mm, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.16; p=0.61) vs traditional loading. Low profile was not associated with MBL at 1 year (p=0.42) or at 2 years (p=0.72). C/I ratio was not associated with MBL at 1 year (p=0.42) or at 2 years (p=0.69).Conclusions and Clinical ImplicationsWithin the limitations of this case series, short implants showed acceptable survival rate and MBL. Comparable results were observed between immediate and conventional loading. Further evaluations with a longer follow up are required.

Author: Boyd J. Tomasetti
Publisher: Springer Nature
ISBN: 3030441997
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 334

Get Book Here

Book Description
This comprehensive guide to short implants will take the reader through their research and development, explain the clinical indications, evaluate the outcomes achieved with various implants, and explore restorative and laboratory considerations. Short implants have steadily gained greater market share in the last decade as practitioners sought alternatives to traditional length implants in order to avoid grafting procedures. Current manufacturers offer a variety of implant lengths and widths, allowing surgeons and restorative dentists the ability to select the best implant for each clinical circumstance. Cutting edge information is provided on the research and clinical results achieved utilizing a range of implants, specifically those developed by Nobel Biocare, Straumann, Jack Hahn, and Bicon. Readers will also find an extensive description of the role of ultra-short implants involving reconstruction in both cleft patients and cancer patients who have lost portions of their mandible and/or maxilla. This book is a must-have for those interested in learning how the use of short and ultra-short implants offers both surgeons and restorative dentists an opportunity to stand out from those that use only the traditional length implants.

Author: Young-Jun Lim
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book Here

Book Description
Background : Short implants are considered to be the simpler and more effective alternative to complicated bone graft surgery in clinical situations with reduced alveolar bone height. But, a considerable number of clinicians still hesitate to use short implants questioning about their prognoses mainly due to the reduced contact area between the bone and implant and unfavorable crown to implant ratio compared to longer implants. Aim : The aim of the study is to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of short implants supporting fixed prostheses in posterior regions. Methods : A retrospective study design was adopted. 69 short implants(intra-bony length u2264 8 mm) supporting fixed prostheses in posterior regions of 56 patients were included. The implant success rate and periimplant marginal bone loss were evaluated. The effects of associated factors on the implant performance were analyzed. Results : A total of 3 implants failed. 2 implants were lost before loading and 1 implant was lost at 7 months after loading. The mean follow up was 30.1 months(SD=11.8 months). Success rate was 95.7% and 94.6% for the implant and patient-based analysis respectively. The average marginal bone loss after 1 year of follow-up was 0.02 u00b1 0.16 mm at mesial and 0.03 u00b1 0.14 mm at distal aspect. No relationship was observed between the studied variables and the marginal bone loss. Conclusions: High survival rates for short implants in posterior regions could be achieved with minimal marginal bone loss in this study. Within the limits of the short term follow up, a short implant (u2264 8 mm ) may be considered as a predictable treatment modality for posterior region with reduced bone height.

Author: Saridakis Konstantinos
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book Here

Book Description
A 15-year study of short dental implants after prosthetic rehabilitationSaridakis K, Vou00df D, Wagner W Background: The use of short dental implants can extend the indication range of dental implantology, by reducing the use of bone augmentation procedures in atrophied jaws; In addition their use can reduce treatment costs, decrease treatment time and improve complications rate. Despite the fact that implants of various lengths have been introduced in the market since the establishment of implantology, It still remains controversial below which length an implant should be considered as a short.Aim: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term survival rate of short implants and to compare the survival rates of two different short implants groups in association to the impact of crown/implant ratio, implant design and augmentation procedures.Materials and methods: A total of 247 patients were treated with 465 short dental implants (u22649mm) between 01.2000 and 01.2015 in a Clinic of Oral&Maxillofacial Surgery; after exclusion of drop-outs and application of inclusion criteria, the implants were divided into two groups based on their length in order to analyze survival rates and marginal bone levels. The first group (4.50mm - 7.00mm) included 32 patients with 54 short dental implants while the second group (>7.00mm - u22649.00mm) included 29 patients with 73 short dental implants. Results: Sixteen implants failed during the follow-up period. Cumulative survival rate according to Kaplan-Meier for the whole sample was 87.4%. There was no statistically significant difference in survival rates between the two groups (87.03% vs 87.67%). The interproximal marginal bone loss for the first group was u03bc=0.38mm (Range: 0.02 to 2.23mm) at the mesial aspect and u03bc=0.39mm (Range: 0.01 to 2.56mm) at the distal aspect in relation to implant shoulder level and showed no significant difference to the second group (u03bc=0.57mm mesial with range: 0.02 to 4.00mm and u03bc=0.56mm distal with range: 0.03 to 4.22mm). There was no statistically significant difference between groups (p>0.05) in the influence of the crown / implant ratios on the survival rate. Also, in the first group conical implants presented a higher survival rate (p

Author: Tomas Linkevic̆ius
Publisher:
ISBN: 9780867158342
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book Here

Book Description

Author: Khongkhunthian Pathawee
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book Here

Book Description
Immediate dental implant placement and loading treatment protocol has been investigated with the promising clinical results. However, the use of short implant in this treatment option has not been performed. The purpose of the study was to compare the clinical outcomes and survival rates of immediately-loaded short implants and conventional length dental implants (Pw Plus dental implant system, Thailand) in replacing mandibular molar teeth.Materials and methodsThe clinical study was approved by the Human Experimentation Committee. Fifty implants in 46 patients were included in the study. Twenty five short dental implants (6 mm.) and 25 conventional dental implants (10 mm.) were randomly placed as single tooth replacements in the edentulous molar areas of the mandibles. Provisional, CAD-CAM, ceramic block (Shofu HC) crowns were cemented to the abutments of the implants, and immediately loaded. The clinical parameters, such as insertion torque (IT), resonance frequency analysis (RFA), marginal bone level changes, and complications, were recorded and statistically analysed.ResultsTwo short implants and two conventional implants were excluded from the study due to insufficient insertion torque (less than 35 Ncm). Two short implants disintegrated, and one conventional implant failed. The accumulate survival rate of short implants was 91.30%, compared to 95.65% for conventional implants. However, there was no significant difference between the two implant types (P (Fisheru2019s exact) = 1.00). Only minor complications were found (three provisional crown fractures with short implants and two with conventional implants).The differences in IT among the two implant types were not significant (P =.264). There was no significant difference in ISQ value for short or conventional implants between baseline (short: 73.86 u00b1 2.38 mm, conventional: 75.05 u00b1 3.26mm, P=.088) and four months after loading (short: 72.37 u00b1 1.35 mm, conventional: 72.89 u00b1 1.87 mm, P=.165). The mean change in marginal bone level four months post-loading was 0.24 u00b1 0.29 mm for short implants and 0.26 u00b1 0.29 mm for conventional implants ; there was no statistical difference between the two implant types.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, the findings seem to confirm that the immediate loading of short implants is a viable option, comparable to conventional length implants in terms of implant survival, marginal bone loss and ISQ value.

Author: Pelayo Sicilia
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book Here

Book Description
Purpose: The main objective of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 6mm implants (Test group) vs. 8mm implants (Control Group) in terms of success, survival, marginal bone loss and periodontal parameters.Material & Methods: Implants placed in the Clinica Universitaria Odontologica at Universitat Internacional de Catalunya between 2005 and 2015 were evaluated. Control visits were performed evaluating the following parameters (present complications, periodontal parameters, probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, suppuration), periapical radiographs were performed to determine bone loss from prosthesis delivery to check-up visits, and clinical records were reviewed for possible complications. Results: A total of 114 implants were reviewed, 68 implants of 6mm and 46 implants of 8 mm. Total survival rate of the test group was is 94,1%, having 4 failures. A single failure was found in the control group, corresponding to a survival of 97,8%. Regarding success rates, according to Buser criteria, in the control group 87,5% of the the implants meet the requirements to be considered successful vs only 64,2% of implants in the test group. The mean marginal bone loss in the control group was 0,43 u00b1 0,24 mm in mesial and 0, 59 u00b1 0,44 mm in distal, while 0,81 u00b1 0,33 mm in mesial and 0.59 u00b1 0,36 mm in distal were found in the test group. All factors were analyzed with a mean follow-up period of 4.5 and 5 years respectively between test and control group. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, 6mm implants show more unfavorable results regarding survival, success and levels of marginal bone loss compared to 8mm implants in an average follow-up time of of 4.5 and 5 years respectively between test and control group. 8mm implants could be considered a more valid therapeutic option.

Author: Eui-Seok Lee
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book Here

Book Description
Introduction Wider implants can predict higher success rates. However, there are few studies on these implants. Therefore, we analyzed the associations between wide implants and survival rates and evaluated the related alveolar bone conditions.Materials and MethodsA total of 38 patients (29 men and 9 women), with a mean age of 52.59 years (range: 30u201369 years) were operated on and followed for one year after the final setting of the prosthetics. For our analyses, we divided the group by implant length and site, age, presence of bone graft, immediate implant placement, and smoking. Using X-rays, we investigated alveolar bone resorption around the implant fixtures and analyzed the average mesial and distal resorption with independent t tests and ANOVA (P

Author: Hugh U. Cameron
Publisher: St. Louis ; Toronto : Moseby
ISBN:
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 408

Get Book Here

Book Description

Author: Pierluigi Balice
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Electronic dissertations
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book Here

Book Description
AIM: To compare, clinically and radiographically, short dental implants (6 mm) to long implants (11-15 mm) placed with sinus grafting. METHODS: Participants with 5-7 mm of bone height in the posterior maxilla were randomly allocated to receive short implants (GS) or long implants with sinus grafting (GG). Implants were loaded with single crowns 6 months after placement (PR). Patients were re-evaluated up tp 60 months after loading (FU-5 years). Outcome variables included: marginal bone level alteration (MBL), implant success and survival rate, periodontal probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque control record (PCR) and crown-to-implant ratios (C/I). Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: 13 patients, 15 implants were re-evaluated at FU-5 years. Intergroup comparison reported no statistical differences in marginal bone loss from baseline to 5 years (GS,-0.33 ± 0.29/GG, +0.32 ± 0.9, p=0.233). No statistical differences were found for PD, BoP and PCR. CONCLUSION: Both treatment modality provided similar outcomes.