Abstract
Purpose. Evaluation of the short implant (8 mm in height) long-term prognosis and of the implant site influence on the prognosis. Methods. A longitudinal study was carried out on 121 patients (57 males and 64 females) consecutively treated with 257 implants. 108 implants were short. Results. Four (3.6%) short implants supporting fixed partial prostheses failed. Similarly, three standard implants supporting fixed partial prostheses and one supporting single-crown prosthesis failed. Mean marginal bone loss (MBL) and probing depth (PD) of short and standard implants were statistically comparable (P > .05). The 20-year cumulative survival rates of short and standard implants were 92.3 and 95.9%, respectively. The cumulative success rates were 78.3 and 81.4%. The survival rates of short implants in posterior and anterior regions were comparable: 95 and 96.4%, respectively. The difference between survival rates was not significant (P > .05). Conclusions. The high reliability of short implants in supporting fixed prostheses was confirmed. Short and standard implants long-term prognoses were not significantly different. The prognosis of short implants in posterior regions was comparable to that of in anterior regions. Nevertheless, a larger sample is required to confirm this trend.
Highlights
Actual patient’s expectations for prosthetic rehabilitation are increasingly high, especially with regard to quality of life and functionality
Peri-implant probing depth (PD) was recorded: for 4 short and 5 standard implants, respectively, it was greater than 3 mm on each peri-implant site
More researches are needed to confirm this trend since the low number of short implants followed, when short implants placed in posterior region were compared to those in anterior region [20]
Summary
Actual patient’s expectations for prosthetic rehabilitation are increasingly high, especially with regard to quality of life and functionality. The introduction of dental implants has led to a turning point in the rehabilitation of partially or totally edentulous patients [1]. Not always, the placement of dental standard length implants is possible or feasible in the first instance. Several anatomical conditions affect the rehabilitation treatment and have an impact on costs and morbidity for the patient. Excessive pneumatization of the maxillary sinus or marked resorption of the edentulous alveolar ridge are factors that may lead to look for different solutions. Techniques such as the elevation of the maxillary sinus or the use of length-reduced implants have been introduced to allow an implant rehabilitation even though these anatomical peculiarities [2]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
