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
. 2024 Mar 8;13(6):1549.
doi: 10.3390/jcm13061549.

Partial Implant Rehabilitations in the Posterior Regions of the Jaws Supported by Short Dental Implants (7.0 mm): A 7-Year Clinical and 5-Year Radiographical Prospective Study

Miguel de Araújo Nobre  1   2 , Carolina Antunes  1 , Armando Lopes  3 , Ana Ferro  3 , Mariana Nunes  3 , Miguel Gouveia  3 , Francisco Azevedo Coutinho  2 , Francisco Salvado  2
Affiliations

Partial Implant Rehabilitations in the Posterior Regions of the Jaws Supported by Short Dental Implants (7.0 mm): A 7-Year Clinical and 5-Year Radiographical Prospective Study

Miguel de Araújo Nobre et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background: Short implants have been used in the restoration of edentulous jaws in the past several years. However, some studies have suggested that short implants are less successful than standard implants. The aim of this study is to investigate the outcome of short implants placed in the posterior maxilla or mandible following one-stage or immediate-function protocols with a follow-up of 7 years (clinically) and 5 years (radiographically). Methods: This study included 127 patients rehabilitated with 217 implants measuring 7 mm and supporting 157 fixed prostheses in the posterior segments of both jaws. Final abutments were delivered at the surgery stage and were loaded after 4 months in 116 patients (199 implants). The primary outcome measure was implant survival measured through life tables. Secondary outcome measures were marginal bone loss and the incidence of biological and mechanical complications at the patient level and implant level (evaluated through descriptive statistics). Results: Twenty-four patients (18.9%) with 45 implants (20.7%) were lost to the follow-up. In total, 32 implants failed (14.8%) in 22 patients (17.3%), resulting in a cumulative survival rate at 7 years of 81.2% for 7 mm implants in the rehabilitation of the posterior regions of the maxilla and mandible. The average (standard deviation) marginal bone loss was 1.47 mm (0.99 mm) at 5 years. The incidence rate of biological complications was 12.6% and 10.6% at the patient and implant levels, respectively. The incidence rate of mechanical complications was 21.3% for patients and 16.1% for implants. A higher failure rate was registered in smokers and in implant arrangements with a sequence of three fixtures in proximity. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the placement of 7 mm long implants for the partial implant-supported rehabilitation of atrophic posterior jaws is possible in the long term, judging by the survival rate and stable average marginal bone loss. Nevertheless, strict case selection should be performed, especially in smokers and with implant arrangements that provide a minimum of one unit in inter-implant distance.

Keywords: dental implants; dental prosthesis; edentulous jaws; follow-up study; immediate loading; implant-supported.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
NobelSpeedy Shorty implant (7.0 mm length; 4.0 mm diameter) used in the present study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pretreatment orthopantomography.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Follow-up periapical radiograph after the insertion of the short implant (4th quadrant).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Follow-up periapical radiograph illustrative of the 5-year follow-up of the short implant (4th quadrant).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Seven-year follow-up orthopantomograph with the definitive prosthesis connected to a 7 mm implant (4th quadrant).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Survival plot illustrating the cumulative survival rate of short implants during the 7-year follow-up.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Stellingsma C., Meijer H.J., Raghoebar G.M. Use of short endosseous implants and an overdenture in the extremely resorbed mandible: A five-year retrospective study. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2000;58:382–387. doi: 10.1016/S0278-2391(00)90917-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Friberg B., Gröndahl K., Lekholm U., Brånemark P.I. Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Brånemark implants. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2000;2:184–189. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00116.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lemos C.A.A., Ferro-Alves M.L., Okamoto R., Mendonça M.R., Pellizzer E.P. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2016;47:8–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Telleman G., Raghoebar G.M., Vissink A., den Hartog L., Huddleston Slater J.J., Meijer H.J. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2011;38:667–676. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01736.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Monje A., Chan H.L., Fu J.H., Suarez F., Galindo-Moreno P., Wang H.L. Are short dental implants (<10 mm) effective? A meta-analysis on prospective clinical trials. J. Periodontol. 2013;84:895–904. doi: 10.1902/jop.2012.120328. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources