Abstract
Aim. Several limiting factors encourage the clinician to use short implants. Among those, the presence of limiting anatomical elements and the simplification of surgical procedures are particularly significant. The goal of this study is to analyse the opportunity to extend the use of short implants to extrashort implants with a length less than 5 mm (ESI). Materials and Methods. Seven patients (3 women, 4 men; mean age 60.4 years) received extrashort implants (Straumann Implant, Palatal Orthosystem, length 4.2 mm, diameter 4.1 or 4.8 mm) in severe resorbed edentulous posterior areas. The implants were incorporated in partially fixed dentures. The osseous stability and the attachment level were recorded after a loading period of 22 to 54 months. Results. The results demonstrated a success rate of 100%, stability in the osseous level surrounding implants (mean annual mesial and distal loss of 0.026 mm and 0.105 mm, resp.), and no significant differences in the mean attachment depth between extrashort implants and contralateral teeth or implants (3.7 mm versus 3.55 mm, SD = 0.87). Splinting ESI with natural teeth resulted in significantly more bone resorption than with other implants (P=0.001). Conclusion. This exploratory study on the use of extrashort implants demonstrated good reliability over a loading period of 22 to 54 months.
Highlights
Compliance with the strict rules laid down by the pioneers of modern endosseous implantology offers hope for implant survival rate above 90% [1, 2]
The objective of the present study was to evaluate
We suggested extending the indication of these implants to edentulous areas with residual bone height
Summary
Compliance with the strict rules laid down by the pioneers of modern endosseous implantology offers hope for implant survival rate above 90% [1, 2] Breaches of these rules have been proposed by different authors, some suggesting fewer surgical procedures [3] and others seeking to reduce healing time [4] and even proposing immediate loading [5]. The clinical results using these implants showed that specific biomechanical constraints facing short implants did not affect their prognosis [12, 13] and even lead to less bone resorption and less complications than longer implants placed in vertically augmented bone graft sites [14] This may extend indications for implant sites with reduced bone height. These were termed “extrashort implants” (ESI) in order to distinguish them from 5–10 mm “short” implants [15]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Oral Implants
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
