PURPOSE: Using short implants poses a challenge in implant surgery. Implant surfaces have evolved, making it possible to improve the success of short implants substantially. However, there is still little information about the long-term predictability achieved with short, rough-surfaced implants. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival rate of 6-mm rough implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective multicenter analysis of the survival of short 6-mm SLA-surfaced implants was conducted. A total of 230 implants placed in 159 patients were included. The follow-up time ranged between 1 and 6 years. RESULTS: Seven of the 230 implants failed, which gives a cumulative survival rate of 96.4%. Two hundred and fourteen implants were placed in the mandible (93.1%), as opposed to 16 placed in the maxilla (6.9%). Five implants failed during the osseointegration period, and two failed after receiving the prosthetic load. No statistically significant differences were found (P < .44). Of the loaded implants, 209 were splinted to other implants, as opposed to 14 that were not. One implant failed in each group, resulting in a 99.5% for the splinted implants and 92.9% for the unsplinted implants. No statistically significant differences were found between the splinted and unsplinted groups (P < .12). CONCLUSIONS: The short implants used in this study displayed high longterm predictability when placed in the mandible and splinted. There is insufficient- information to extrapolate these results to the maxilla and non-splinted implants.
PURPOSE: Using short implants poses a challenge in implant surgery. Implant surfaces have evolved, making it possible to improve the success of short implants substantially. However, there is still little information about the long-term predictability achieved with short, rough-surfaced implants. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival rate of 6-mm rough implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective multicenter analysis of the survival of short 6-mm SLA-surfaced implants was conducted. A total of 230 implants placed in 159 patients were included. The follow-up time ranged between 1 and 6 years. RESULTS: Seven of the 230 implants failed, which gives a cumulative survival rate of 96.4%. Two hundred and fourteen implants were placed in the mandible (93.1%), as opposed to 16 placed in the maxilla (6.9%). Five implants failed during the osseointegration period, and two failed after receiving the prosthetic load. No statistically significant differences were found (P < .44). Of the loaded implants, 209 were splinted to other implants, as opposed to 14 that were not. One implant failed in each group, resulting in a 99.5% for the splinted implants and 92.9% for the unsplinted implants. No statistically significant differences were found between the splinted and unsplinted groups (P < .12). CONCLUSIONS: The short implants used in this study displayed high longterm predictability when placed in the mandible and splinted. There is insufficient- information to extrapolate these results to the maxilla and non-splinted implants.