Success rate of short dental implants supporting single crowns and fixed bridges

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 27; no. 9; pp. 1093 - 1098
• Main Authors: Malmstrom, Hans, Gupta, Bhumija, Ghanem, Alexis, Cacciato, Rita, Ren, Yanfang, Romanos, Georgios E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2016
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; clinical trial; crestal bone loss; Crowns; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported - methods; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; rough surface design; short implants; success rates; Young Adult; clinical trial; crestal bone loss; short implants; success rates; rough surface design
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12693

Objective Bone grafts (sinus lift and/or ridge augmentation) may become an obstacle for some patients who desire implant treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the success of six‐ and eight‐millimeters rough surface design short dental implants, for up to 2 years in function, when compared to conventional length (11 mm) implants. Materials and Methods A total of 25.6‐, 20.8‐ and 35.11‐mm length implants were placed and restored in 30 subjects (11 males, 19 females) between the age of 22 and 80, following a standard protocol. Implant mobility, crestal bone loss as well as periodontal parameters were evaluated immediately after restoration placement, at 6, 12 and 24 months. Results There was one failure of one 6‐mm implant during the healing phase and one restorative failure. The median crestal bone loss at 24 months was 0.45 mm for the 6‐mm implants, 0.55 mm for the 8 mm implants and 0.65 mm for the 11‐mm implants. The success rate for 6‐mm implants was 97% and for 8‐mm and 11‐mm implants 100%. Conclusions Based on this preliminary data, we conclude that rough surface design short dental implants (6 and 8 mm in length) have similar success rate when compared to 11‐mm implants. Long‐term data with larger number of implants and subjects are needed to confirm these results.