We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 49 (2018), No. 8     17. Aug. 2018
Quintessence Int 49 (2018), No. 8  (17.08.2018)

Page 635-643, doi:10.3290/j.qi.a40763, PubMed:29989107


Can extra-short dental implants serve as alternatives to bone augmentation? A preliminary longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial
Shah, Sara N. / Chung, Jamie / Kim, David M. / Machtei, Eli E.
Objective: A randomized trial to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes of short versus standard dental implants placed with concomitant vertical bone augmentation.
Method and Materials: Patients requiring dental implants were randomized to receive either 6-mm implants (experimental) or 10-mm implants with vertical augmentation (control). Custom load-bearing healing abutments were connected to allow for indirect resonance frequency analysis measurements. Standardized radiographs were taken at implant placement (baseline), and at 3 and 12 months. Implants were restored at 3 to 6 months, and final measurements were taken at 12 months.
Results: Fifty patients with 25 implants per group were included. Five implants failed, four experimental and one control (84% and 96% cumulative survival rate, respectively). Short implants required significantly less surgical time (51.6 ± 23 versus 68.5 ± 35 minutes, P = .05). Implant stability quotients at baseline (67.9 ± 8.3 experimental and 70.8 ± 7.6 control, P = .215) and 12 weeks (70.17 ± 7.4 and 72.03 ± 5.9, respectively, P = .513) were similar and unchanged. Positive correlation was found between the two measurement methods (r2 = .6, P = .025). One-year average marginal bone loss was slightly lower for the experimental group (0.6 ± 0.16 mm) compared to the control group (0.86 ± 0.19 mm); however, this was not statistically significant (P = .287).
Conclusion: Short dental implants may offer an alternative for implant placement in an atrophic jaw; however, they are associated with reduced first-year survival rate. Short dental implants should be used judiciously in light of this potential predicament, and alternatives assessed.

Keywords: bone loss, immediate restoration, regeneration, short implants, success, survival