Keywords
Bone grafts
Jaws
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the use of short and extra short implants instead of standard and long implants (conventional) with prior bone regeneration surgeries, assisting the dental surgeon in choosing the most appropriate treatment plan to rehabilitate atrophic posterior regions of the maxilla and mandible. Bibliographic review: The rehabilitation of atrophic posterior areas of the maxilla and mandible has always been a significant challenge in implantology. This is because the vertical height of the posterior alveolar ridges is insufficient due to bone resorption following tooth loss, making it difficult to place conventional implants without prior surgeries to acquire the necessary bone support. Short and extra-short implants have emerged as an alternative to avoid such procedures, which are costly, complex, time-consuming, and associated with postoperative morbidity. Final considerations: The literature indicates that rehabilitation with shorter implants or conventional implants (with prior surgery) presents similar results, suggesting that short and extra-short implants can also be viable options in atrophic posterior regions. It is up to the dental surgeon to decide, based on the patient's clinical condition, which is the best option for each specific case.
References
AL-JOHANY SS, et al. Dental Implant Length and Diameter: A Proposed Classification Scheme. J Prosthodont, 2016; 26(3): 252-260.
AMINE M, et al. Short implants (5-8 mm) vs. longimplants in augmented boné and their impact on peri-implant bone in maxila and/or mandible: Systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillo fac Surg, 2018; 119(6): 455-462.
ANITUA E, et al. Clinical Performance of Extra-Short (≤5.5 mm) Compared to Longer Implants Splinted under the Same Prosthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Dent J (Basel), 2024; 12(9): 292.
ANNIBALI S, et al. Short dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res, 2012; 91(1): 25-32.
ATTARD NJ e ZARB GA. Implant prosth odontic management of part iallye dentulous patients missing posterior teeth: the Toronto experience. J Prosthet Dent, 2003; 89(4): 352-9.
BUSER D, et al. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants: 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1990; 1: 33-40.
DE CASTRO D, et al. Comparative histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of marginal boné resorption around external hexagon and Morse cone implants: an experimental study in dogs. Implant Dent, 2014; 23(3): 270-6.
FELICE P, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6-mm-long 4-mm-wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. Five-year post-loading results from a within-person randomised controlled trial. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl), 2019; 12(1): 57-72.
FERNANDES GVO, et al. Comparative analysis between extra-short implants (≤6 mm) and 6-mm-longer implants: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Aust Dent J, 2022; 1-18.
GASTALDI G, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants with a nano structured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone: 3-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol, 2018; 11(1): 49–61.
GRIFFIN TJ e CHEUNG WS. The use of short, wide implants in posterior areas with reduced one height: A retrospective investigation. J Prosthet Dent, 2004; 92(2):139-144.
JEPSEN S, et al. Regenerationof alveolar ridgedefects: Consensus reportofgroup 4 ofthe 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration. J Clin Periodontol, 2019; 46(21): 277–286.
LEMOS CAA, et al. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent, 2016; 47: 8-17.
LEONG DJ, et al. Comparison between sandwich boné augmentation and all ogenic block graft for vertical ridge augmentation in the posterior mandible. Implant Dent, 2015; 24(1): 4-12.
LIZIO G, et al. Posterior jaws rehabilitation with< 7mm-short implants. A review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2022; 123(3): 45-56.
MAGDY M, et al. Ultra-short versus standard-length dental implants in conjunction with osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2021; 1–10.
MENEZES DJ, et al. Effect of platelet-rich plasma in alveolar distraction osteogenesis: a controlled clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2016; 54(1): 83-7.
MERLI M, et al. A minimally invasive technique for lateral maxillary sinus floor elevation: a Bayesian network study. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2014; 1–9.
MESTER A, et al. Short implants versus standard implants and sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with ≥5 years’ follow-up. J Pers Med, 2023; 13(2): 169.
MISCH CE. Short dental implants: A literature review and rationale for use. Dent Today, 2005; 24(8): 64-68.
NISAND D e RENOUARD F. Short implant in limited bone volume. Periodontol 2000, 2014; 66(1): 72-96.
PAPASPYRIDAKOS P, et al. Survival rates of short dental implants (≤6 mm) compared with implants longer than 6 mm in posterior jaw areas: A meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2018; 29(16): 8-20.
PEIXOTO HE, et al. Rehabilitation of the atrophic mandible with short implants in diferente positions: a finite elements study. MaterSciEng C Mater Biol Appl, 2017; 80: 122-128.
PEREIRA JPV, et al. Comparative clinical study using short and conventional implants in bilateral jaw posteriors. Braz Dent J, 2020; 31(4): 368-373.
PIMENTEL AC, et al. LateralizationTechnique and Inferior Alveolar NerveTransposition. Case Rep Dent, 2016; 4802637.
QIN S e GAO Z. Comparative evaluation of short or standard implants with diferente prosthetic designs in the posterior mandibular region: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 2023; 26(12):1499-1509.
SCHWARTZ SR. Short implants: An answer to a challenging dilemma? Dent Clin North Am, 2020; 64(2): 253-268.
SHAH SN, et al. Canextra-short dental implants serve as alternatives to bone augmentation? A preliminary longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial. Quintessence Int, 2018; 49(8): 635-643.
TANG C, et al. Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent, 2022; 8: 45.
THOMA DS, et al. Treatment concepts for the posterior maxila and mandible: short implants versus long implants in augmented bone. J Periodontal Implant Sci, 2017; 47(1): 2-12.
WEERAPONG K, et al. Comparative study of immediat elo adingon short dental implants and conventional dental implants in the posterior mandible: A randomizedclinicaltrial. Int J Oral Maxillo fac Implants, 2019; 34(1): 141-149.
WENG D, et al. A prospective multi center clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillo fac Implants, 2003; 18(3): 417-23.
XU X, et al. Short versus standard implants for single-crown restorations in the posterior region: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent, 2020; 124(5): 530-538.
YANG J, et al. Augmentation of the alveolar ridge compared with shorter implants in atrophic jaws: a meta-analysis base don randomised controll edtrials. Br J Oral Maxillo fac Surg, 2016; 54(9): 1125-1133.
ZADEH HH, et al. Marginal boné level and survival of short and standard-length implants after 3 years: An open multi-centerr and omized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2018; 1–13.