Literature DB >> 23656303

Retrospective study of short and extra-short implants placed in posterior regions: influence of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone loss.

Eduardo Anitua1, Laura Piñas, Gorka Orive.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of crown-to-implant (CI) ratio as well as other surgical, prosthetic and biomechanical variables on marginal bone loss (MBL) and on the survival rates of implant-supported prostheses in short implants (≤8.5 mm in length) placed in posterior areas of maxilla and mandible. MATERIAL &
METHODS: This was a retrospective study based on clinical charts and follow-up recordings from a single private practice over a period of 10 years. Patients rehabilitated in the posterior region of the jaws by means of prostheses supported by implants of ≤8.5 mm length were included. Patients-related, surgery-related. and implant-related variables, as well as other prosthetic and biomechanical variables. were registered. The data were split into two groups according to the value of CI ratio (CI < 2 and CI ≥ 2). MBL was measured from radiographs using an image analysis software. Implant and prosthesis survival rates were recorded.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight short implants placed in 63 patients were evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 21.88 months (standard deviation (SD): 22.9, range 7-113 months). Eighty-six implants (67.2%) had a CI ratio of <2, whereas it was ≥2 in 42 implants (32.8%). The mean value of CI ratio was 1.82 (SD: 0.42; range 1.04-3.31). The average MBL after 1 year of follow-up was 0.35 (SD: 0.50), and it was 0.45 (SD: 0.46) mm for subsequent evaluations. Survival rates of implants and prosthesis were 100%. The presence of a cantilever had a negative influence on the first year MBL (p < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The CI ratio had not a significant influence on MBL in Biotechnology Institute (BTI; Vitoria, Spain) short implants humidified with PRGF-Endoret and placed in posterior areas. The only variable that showed a significant negative influence on first year postloading MBL was the use of cantilever for rehabilitations.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  extra-short implants; implant survival; marginal bone loss; retrospective; short implants

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23656303     DOI: 10.1111/cid.12073

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res        ISSN: 1523-0899            Impact factor:   3.932


  12 in total

Review 1.  Short Implants: New Horizon in Implant Dentistry.

Authors:  Neha Jain; Manisha Gulati; Meenu Garg; Chetan Pathak
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-09-01

2.  Cumulative Success Rate of Short and Ultrashort Implants Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Maxilla: A 3-Year Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Giorgio Lombardo; Jacopo Pighi; Mauro Marincola; Giovanni Corrocher; Miguel Simancas-Pallares; Pier Francesco Nocini
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2017-07-02

Review 3.  Short dental implants in the posterior maxilla: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Zeinab Rezaei Esfahrood; Loghman Ahmadi; Elahe Karami; Shima Asghari
Journal:  J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-04-25

4.  Prospective, Clinical Pilot Study with Eleven 4-Mm Extra-Short Implants Splinted to Longer Implants for Posterior Maxilla Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Daniel Torassa; Pablo Naldini; José Luis Calvo-Guirado; Enrique Fernández-Bodereau
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Single-Crown, Short and Ultra-Short Implants, in Association with Simultaneous Internal Sinus Lift in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Three-Year Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Giorgio Lombardo; Mauro Marincola; Annarita Signoriello; Giovanni Corrocher; Pier Francesco Nocini
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 3.623

6.  Principles of biomechanics in oral implantology.

Authors:  Avram Manea; Simion Bran; Cristian Dinu; Horatiu Rotaru; Ioan Barbur; Bogdan Crisan; Gabriel Armencea; Florin Onisor; Madalina Lazar; Daniel Ostas; Mihaela Baciut; Sergiu Vacaras; Ileana Mitre; Liana Crisan; Ovidiu Muresan; Rares Roman; Grigore Baciut
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2019-12-15

7.  Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  João Caramês; Ana Catarina Pinto; Gonçalo Caramês; Helena Francisco; Joana Fialho; Duarte Marques
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-12-05       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm) versus Standard Dental Implants (≥10 mm): A One-Year Post-Loading Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Guillermo Pardo-Zamora; Antonio José Ortiz-Ruíz; Fabio Camacho-Alonso; José Francisco Martínez-Marco; Juan Manuel Molina-González; Núria Piqué-Clusella; Ascensión Vicente-Hernández
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  The Influence of the Crown-Implant Ratio on the Crestal Bone Level and Implant Secondary Stability: 36-Month Clinical Study.

Authors:  Jakub Hadzik; Maciej Krawiec; Konstanty Sławecki; Christiane Kunert-Keil; Marzena Dominiak; Tomasz Gedrange
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Evaluation of the Surrounding Ring of Two Different Extra-Short Implant Designs in Crestal Bone Maintanence: A Histologic Study in Dogs.

Authors:  José Luis Calvo-Guirado; Hilde Morales-Meléndez; Carlos Pérez-Albacete Martínez; David Morales-Schwarz; Roni Kolerman; Manuel Fernández-Domínguez; Sérgio Alexandre Gehrke; José Eduardo Maté-Sánchez de Val
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 3.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.