Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Study Design and Patient Selection
2.2. Surgical Procedures
2.3. Variables
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adell, R. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int. J. Oral Surg. 1981, 10, 387–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigo, D.; Cabello, G.; Herrero, M.; Gonzalez, D.; Herrero, F.; Aracil, L.; Morante, S.; Rebelo, H.; Villaverde, G.; García, A.; et al. Retrospective multicenter study of 230 6-mm SLA-surfaced implants with 1- to 6-year follow-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2013, 28, 1331–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thoma, D.S.; Zeltner, M.; Hüsler, J.; Hämmerle, C.H.F.; Jung, R.E. EAO Supplement Working Group 4—EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26, 154–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, T.; Li, Y.; Deng, W.W.; Wu, T.; Zhang, W. Short implants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (>8 mm) with sinus lifting in atrophic posterior maxilla: A meta-analysis of RCTs. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felice, P.; Barausse, C.; Pistilli, R.; Ippolito, D.R.; Esposito, M. Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: Result at 8 years after loading from a randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2018, 11, 385–395. [Google Scholar]
- Chiapasco, M.; Casentini, P.; Zaniboni, M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 24, 237–259. [Google Scholar]
- Dias, F.J.; Pecorari, V.G.A.; Martins, C.B.; Del Fabbro, M.; Casati, M.Z. Short implants versus bone augmentation in combination with standard-length implants in posterior atrophic partially edentulous mandibles: Systematic review and meta-analysis with the Bayesian approach. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 48, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwartz, S.R. Short implants: An answer to a challenging dilemma? Dent. Clin. North Am. 2020, 64, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annibali, S.; Cristalli, M.P.; Dell’Aquila, D.; Bignozzi, I.; La Monaca, G.; Pilloni, A. Short dental implants: A systematic review. J. Dent. Res. 2012, 91, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nisand, D.; Picard, N.; Rocchietta, I. Short implants compared to implants in vertically augmented bone: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Block, M.S.; Haggerty, C.J. Interpositional osteotomy for posterior mandible ridge augmentation. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009, 67, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lozano-Carrascal, N.; Anglada-Bosqued, A.; Salomó-Coll, O.; Hernández-Alfaro, F.; Wang, H.L.; Gargallo-Albiol, J. Short implants (<8 mm) versus longer implants (≥8 mm) with lateral sinus floor augmentation in posterior atrophic maxilla: A meta-analysis of RCT’s in humans. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 2020, 25, e168–e179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosenstein, J.; Dym, H. Zygomatic implants: A solution for the atrophic maxilla. Dent. Clin. North Am. 2020, 64, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roccuzzo, A.; Marchese, S.; Worsaae, N.; Jensen, S.S. The sandwich osteotomy technique to treat vertical alveolar bone defects prior to implant placement: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2020, 24, 1073–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pistilli, R.; Simion, M.; Barausse, C.; Gasparro, R.; Pistilli, V.; Bellini, P.; Felice, P. Guided bone regeneration with nonresorbable membranes in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous atrophic arches: A retrospective study on 122 implants with a 3- to 7-year follow-up. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2020, 40, 685–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palacio García-Ochoa, A.; Pérez-González, F.; Negrillo Moreno, A.; Sánchez-Labrador, L.; Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann, J.; Martínez-González, J.M.; López-Quiles Martínez, J. Complications associated with inferior alveolar nerve reposition technique for simultaneous implant-based rehabilitation of atrophic mandibles. A systematic literature review. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 121, 390–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papaspyridakos, P.; De Souza, A.; Vazouras, K.; Gholami, H.; Pagni, S.; Weber, H.P. Survival rates of short dental implants (≤6 mm) compared with implants longer than 6 mm in posterior jaw areas: A meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saletta, J.M.; Garcia, J.J.; Caramês, J.M.M.; Schliephake, H.; da Silva Marques, D.N. Quality assessment of systematic reviews on vertical bone regeneration. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 48, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravidà, A.; Barootchi, S.; Askar, H.; Suárez-López del Amo, F.; Tavelli, L.; Wang, H.-L. Long-term effectiveness of extra-short (≤6 mm) dental implants: A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2019, 34, 68–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anitua, E.; Alkhraisat, M.H. 15-year follow-up of short dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient: Mandible Vs maxilla. Ann. Anat. 2019, 222, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scarano, A.; Mortellaro, C.; Brucoli, M.; Lucchina, A.G.; Assenza, B.; Lorusso, F. Short implants: Analysis of 69 implants loaded in mandible compared with longer implants. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2018, 29, 2272–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meijer, H.J.A.; Boven, C.; Delli, K.; Raghoebar, G.M. Is there an effect of crown-to-implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nedir, R.; Bischof, M.; Briaux, J.M.; Beyer, S.; Szmukler-Monder, S.; Bernard, J.P. A 7-year life table analysis from a prospective study on ITI implants with special emphasis on the use of short implants. Results from a private practice. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2004, 15, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anitua, E.; Piñas, L.; Orive, G. Retrospective study of short and extra-short implants placed in posterior regions: Influence of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone loss. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2013, 17, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres-Alemany, A.; Fernández-Estevan, L.; Agustín-Panadero, R.; Montiel-Company, J.M.; Labaig-Rueda, C.; Mañes-Ferrer, J.F. Clinical behavior of short dental implants: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baggi, L.; Cappelloni, I.; Di Girolamo, M.; Maceri, F.; Vairo, G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2008, 100, 422–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pommer, B.; Busenlechner, D.; Fürhauser, R.; Watzek, G.; Mailath-Pokorny, G.; Haas, R. Trends in techniques to avoid bone augmentation surgery: Application of short implants, narrow-diameter implants and guided surgery. J. Cranio Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 44, 1630–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, M.; Qi, M.; Zhang, D.; Liu, H. The clinical performance of narrow diameter implants versus regular diameter implants: A meta-analysis. J. Oral Implantol. 2019, 45, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piero, P.; Lorenzo, C.; Daniele, R.; Rita, G.; Luca, P.; Giorgio, P. Survival of short dental implants ≤ 7 mm: A review. Int. J. Contemp. Dent. Med. Rev. 2015, 011, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renouard, F.; Nisand, D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2006, 17, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivasan, M.; Vazquez, L.; Rieder, P.; Moraguez, O.; Bernard, D.M.D.J.; Belser, U.C. Efficacy and predictability of short dental implants (<8 mm): A critical appraisal of the recent literature. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2012, 27, 1429–1437. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, H.C.; Si, M.S.; Zhuang, L.F.; Shen, H.; Liu, Y.L.; Wismeijer, D. Long-term outcomes of short dental implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: A clinical retrospective study of 5–10 years. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013, 24, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rossi, F.; Lang, N.P.; Ricci, E.; Ferraioli, L.; Marchetti, C.; Botticelli, D. Early loading of 6-mm-short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns—A prospective 5-year cohort study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26, 471–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, R.E.; Al-Nawas, B.; Araujo, M.; Avila-Ortiz, G.; Barter, S.; Brodala, N.; Chappuis, V.; Chen, B.; De Souza, A.; Almeida, R.F.; et al. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbrouckef, J.P. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull. World Health Organ. 2007, 85, 867–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smeets, E.C.; De Jong, K.J.M.; Abraham-Inpijn, L. Detecting the medically compromised patient in dentistry by means of the medical risk-related history: A survey of 29,424 dental patients in the Netherlands. Prev. Med. 1998, 27, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Telleman, G.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Vissink, A.; Meijer, H.J.A. Impact of platform switching on peri-implant bone remodeling around short implants in the posterior region, 1-year results from a split-mouth clinical trial. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 16, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eke, P.I.; Page, R.C.; Wei, L.; Thornton-Evans, G.; Genco, R.J. Update of the case definitions for population-based surveillance of periodontitis. J. Periodontol. 2012, 83, 1449–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buser, D.; Weber, H.; Lang, N. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 1990, 1, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivasan, M.; Vazquez, L.; Rieder, P.; Moraguez, O.; Bernard, J.-P.; Belser, U.C. Survival rates of short (6 mm) micro-rough surface implants: A review of literature and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014, 25, 539–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Ou, Q.; Wang, Y.; Lin, X. Short implants (5–8 mm) versus long implants (≥10 mm) with augmentation in atrophic posterior jaws: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Oral Rehabil. 2019, 46, 1192–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mezzomo, L.A.; Miller, R.; Triches, D.; Alonso, F.; Shinkai, R.S.A. Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, 191–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palacios, J.A.V.; Garcia, J.J.; Caramês, J.M.M.; Quirynen, M.; da Silva Marques, D.N. Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naenni, N.; Sahrmann, P.; Schmidlin, P.R.; Attin, T.; Wiedemeier, D.B.; Sapata, V.; Hämmerle, C.H.F.; Jung, R.E. Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Dent. Res. 2018, 97, 887–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roland, M.; Torgerson, D. Understanding controlled trials. What are pragmatic trials? Br. Med. J. 1998, 316, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, H.C.; Burden-Teh, E.; Nunn, A.J. What is a pragmatic clinical trial? J. Investig. Dermatol. 2015, 135, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zwarenstein, M.; Treweek, S.; Gagnier, J.J.; Altman, D.G.; Tunis, S.; Haynes, B.; Oxman, A.D.; Moher, D. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Br. Med. J. 2008, 337, 1223–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jemt, T.; Lekholm, U. Implant treatment in edentulous maxillae: A 5-year follow-up report on patients with different degrees of jaw resorption. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1995, 10, 303–311. [Google Scholar]
- Weng, D.; Jacobson, Z.; Tarnow, D.; Hürzeler, M.B.; Sanavi, F.; Barkvoll, P.; Stach, R.M.; Faehn, O. A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: Results after 6 years of follow-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2003, 18, 417–423. [Google Scholar]
- Hermann, J.S.; Buser, D.; Schenk, R.K.; Schoolfield, J.D.; Cochran, D.L. Biologic Width around one- and two-piece titanium implants—A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2001, 12, 559–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piattelli, A.; Vrespa, G.; Petrone, G.; Iezzi, G.; Annibali, S.; Scarano, A. Role of the microgap between implant and abutment: A retrospective histologic evaluation in monkeys. J. Periodontol. 2003, 74, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gottlow, J.; Dard, M.; Kjellson, F.; Obrecht, M.; Sennerby, L. Evaluation of a new titanium-zirconium dental implant: A biomechanical and histological comparative study in the mini pig. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 538–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vazouras, K.; Souza, A.B.D.E.; Vazouras, K.; Barbisan, A.; Gholami, H.; Papaspyridakos, P.; Pagni, S.; Weber, H. Effect of time in function on the predictability of short dental implants (≤6 mm): A meta-analysis. J. Oral Rehabil. 2020, 47, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Implant Type | Bone Level (BL) | Tissue Level (TL) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implant Length | 8 mm | 6 mm | 8 mm | ||
Patient-based analysis | Gender | Male | 88 | 53 | 68 |
Female | 159 | 115 | 111 | ||
Age | Mean | 57.65 ± 12.31 | 58.32 ± 12.59 | 58.25 ± 12.57 | |
Periodontal Status | Healthy | 213 | 140 | 148 | |
Supportive periodontal treatment before surgery | 25 | 18 | 23 | ||
Supportive periodontal treatment during follow-up period | 9 | 10 | 8 |
Implant Type | Bone Level (BL) | Tissue Level (TL) | Total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implant Length | 8 mm | 6 mm | 8 mm | |||
Implant-based analysis | Implant Width | 3.3 mm | 184 | - | 36 | 220 |
4.1 mm | 292 | 260 | 236 | 788 | ||
Type of rehabilitation | Single | 127 | 78 | 117 | 322 | |
Partial | 163 | 145 | 137 | 445 | ||
Total | 186 | 37 | 18 | 241 | ||
Location | Anterior Maxilla | 85 | 2 | 9 | 96 | |
Posterior Maxilla | 155 | 89 | 74 | 318 | ||
Anterior Mandible | 39 | 2 | 9 | 50 | ||
Posterior Mandible | 197 | 167 | 180 | 544 | ||
Time of loading | Immediate | 123 | 8 | 8 | 139 | |
Delayed | 353 | 252 | 264 | 869 | ||
Implant Failure | No | 464 | 254 | 268 | 986 | |
Yes | 12 | 6 | 4 | 22 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Caramês, J.; Pinto, A.C.; Caramês, G.; Francisco, H.; Fialho, J.; Marques, D. Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3943. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9123943
Caramês J, Pinto AC, Caramês G, Francisco H, Fialho J, Marques D. Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(12):3943. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9123943
Chicago/Turabian StyleCaramês, João, Ana Catarina Pinto, Gonçalo Caramês, Helena Francisco, Joana Fialho, and Duarte Marques. 2020. "Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 12: 3943. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9123943