Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Feb;47(1):2-12.
doi: 10.5051/jpis.2017.47.1.2. Epub 2017 Feb 28.

Treatment concepts for the posterior maxilla and mandible: short implants versus long implants in augmented bone

Daniel Stefan Thoma  1 , Jae-Kook Cha  2 , Ui-Won Jung  2
Affiliations
Review

Treatment concepts for the posterior maxilla and mandible: short implants versus long implants in augmented bone

Daniel Stefan Thoma et al. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2017 Feb.

Abstract

The aim of this narrative review is to describe treatment options for the posterior regions of the mandible and the maxilla, comparing short implants vs. longer implants in an augmented bone. The dental literature was screened for treatment options enabling the placement of dental implants in posterior sites with a reduced vertical bone height in the maxilla and the mandible. Short dental implants have been increasingly used recently, providing a number of advantages including reduced patient morbidity, shorter treatment time, and lower costs. In the posterior maxilla, sinus elevation procedures were for long considered to be the gold standard using various bone substitute materials and rendering high implant survival rates. More recently, implants were even placed without any further use of bone substitute materials, but the long-term outcomes have yet to be documented. Vertical bone augmentation procedures in the mandible require a relatively high level of surgical skill and allow the placement of standard-length dental implants by the use of autogenous bone blocks. Both treatment options, short dental implants, and standard-length implants in combination with vertical bone augmentation procedures, appear to result in predictable outcomes in terms of implant survival rates. According to recent clinical studies comparing the therapeutic options of short implants vs. long implants in augmented bone, the use of short dental implants leads to a number of advantages for the patients and the clinician.

Keywords: Alveolar ridge augmentation; Dental implants; Sinus floor augmentation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) A treatment option for the posterior maxilla with a vertical bone height of 6–8 mm. (B, C) A short dental implant is recommended.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) A treatment option for the posterior maxilla with a vertical bone height of more than 8 mm. (B, C) A transcrestal sinus elevation approach can be chosen for a vertical ridge dimension exceeding 8 mm and if standard-length implants are the preferred option.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) A treatment option for the posterior mandible with a remaining ridge height of less than 8 mm. (B) Primary vertical bone augmentation should be performed, (C) followed by the placement of standard-length implants.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(A) A treatment option for the posterior mandible with a remaining ridge height of 8–10 mm. (B, C) A short dental implant is recommended.
Figure 5
Figure 5
(A) A treatment option for the posterior mandible with a vertical bone height of more than 10 mm. (B, C) Standard-length implants are recommended.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Decision-making process for the posterior maxilla and mandible.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):2–21. - PubMed
    1. Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):22–38. - PubMed
    1. van Velzen FJ, Ofec R, Schulten EA, Ten Bruggenkate CM. 10-year survival rate and the incidence of peri-implant disease of 374 titanium dental implants with a SLA surface: a prospective cohort study in 177 fully and partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:1121–1128. - PubMed
    1. Annunziata M, Guida L. The effect of titanium surface modifications on dental implant osseointegration. Front Oral Biol. 2015;17:62–77. - PubMed
    1. Bahrami B, Shahrbaf S, Mirzakouchaki B, Ghalichi F, Ashtiani M, Martin N. Effect of surface treatment on stress distribution in immediately loaded dental implants--a 3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater. 2014;30:e89–97. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources