Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Thoma, Daniel Stefan (Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich) ;
  • Cha, Jae-Kook (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jung, Ui-Won (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2016.12.08
  • Accepted : 2017.01.22
  • Published : 2017.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x
  2. 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.
  3. 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;26:1121-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12499
  4. Annunziata M, Guida L. The effect of titanium surface modifications on dental implant osseointegration. Front Oral Biol 2015;17:62-77.
  5. 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.
  6. Mendonca JA, Francischone CE, Senna PM, Matos de Oliveira AE, Sotto-Maior BS. A retrospective evaluation of the survival rates of splinted and non-splinted short dental implants in posterior partially edentulous jaws. J Periodontol 2014;85:787-94. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2013.130193
  7. Monje A, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Garcia-Nogales A, Fu JH, Wang HL. A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1119-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12236
  8. Lee JS, Kim HM, Kim CS, Choi SH, Chai JK, Jung UW. Long-term retrospective study of narrow implants for fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:847-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02472.x
  9. Manresa C, Bosch M, Echeverria JJ. The comparison between implant stability quotient and bone-implant contact revisited: an experiment in Beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1213-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12256
  10. Shin SY, Shin SI, Kye SB, Hong J, Paeng JY, Chang SW, et al. The effects of defect type and depth, and measurement direction on the implant stability quotient value. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:652-6. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-0031
  11. Al-Juboori MJ, AbdulRahaman SB, Hassan A. The correlation between crestal bone resorption and implant stability during healing period using resonance frequency analysis. Implant Dent 2013;22:351-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e318296583d
  12. Gehrke SA, Mate Sanchez de Val JE, Fernandez Dominguez M, de Aza Moya PN, Gomez Moreno G, Calvo Guirado JL. Effects on the osseointegration of titanium implants incorporating calcium-magnesium: a resonance frequency and histomorphometric analysis in rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Implants Res. Forthcoming 2016.
  13. Dagher M, Mokbel N, Jabbour G, Naaman N. Resonance frequency analysis, insertion torque, and bone to implant contact of 4 implant surfaces: comparison and correlation study in sheep. Implant Dent 2014;23:672-8.
  14. Degidi M, Perrotti V, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. Mineralized bone-implant contact and implant stability quotient in 16 human implants retrieved after early healing periods: a histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:45-8.
  15. Isidor F. Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal overload or plaque accumulation. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.1997.tb00001.x
  16. Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:143-52. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070208.x
  17. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17 Suppl 2:35-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01349.x
  18. Renouard F, Nisand D. Short implants in the severely resorbed maxilla: a 2-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7 Suppl 1:S104-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00082.x
  19. Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants subjected to static load of different duration. A study in the dog (III). Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:552-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120602.x
  20. Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants with different surface characteristics subjected to static load. A study in the dog (II). Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:196-201. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003196.x
  21. Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants subjected to static load. A study in the dog (I). Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001001.x
  22. Blanes RJ, Bernard JP, Blanes ZM, Belser UC. A 10-year prospective study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. II: influence of the crown-to-implant ratio and different prosthetic treatment modalities on crestal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:707-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01307.x
  23. Annibali S, Cristalli MP, Dell'Aquila D, Bignozzi I, La Monaca G, Pilloni A. Short dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012;91:25-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511425675
  24. Atieh MA, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, Cooper LF. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1323-31.
  25. Neldam CA, Pinholt EM. State of the art of short dental implants: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:622-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00303.x
  26. Sun HL, Huang C, Wu YR, Shi B. Failure rates of short ($\leq$ 10 mm) dental implants and factors influencing their failure: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:816-25.
  27. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:667-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01736.x
  28. Quaranta A, Piemontese M, Rappelli G, Sammartino G, Procaccini M. Technical and biological complications related to crown to implant ratio: a systematic review. Implant Dent 2014;23:180-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000026
  29. Sahrmann P, Naenni N, Jung RE, Held U, Truninger T, Hammerle CH, et al. Success of 6-mm implants with single-tooth restorations: a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2016;95:623-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516633432
  30. Mertens C, Meyer-Baumer A, Kappel H, Hoffmann J, Steveling HG. Use of 8-mm and 9-mm implants in atrophic alveolar ridges: 10-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1501-8.
  31. Deporter D, Pharoah M, Yeh S, Todescan R, Atenafu EG. Performance of titanium alloy sintered porous-surfaced (SPS) implants supporting mandibular overdentures during a 20-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:e189-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12043
  32. Jensen SS, Terheyden H. Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24 Suppl:218-36.
  33. Del Fabbro M, Corbella S, Weinstein T, Ceresoli V, Taschieri S. Implant survival rates after osteotome-mediated maxillary sinus augmentation: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14 Suppl 1:e159-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00399.x
  34. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:216-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01272.x
  35. Silva LD, de Lima VN, Faverani LP, de Mendonca MR, Okamoto R, Pellizzer EP. Maxillary sinus lift surgery-with or without graft material? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;45:1570-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.09.023
  36. Del Fabbro M, Wallace SS, Testori T. Long-term implant survival in the grafted maxillary sinus: a systematic review. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:773-83. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.1288
  37. Boffano P, Forouzanfar T. Current concepts on complications associated with sinus augmentation procedures. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:e210-2. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000438
  38. Fugazzotto PA. GBR using bovine bone matrix and resorbable and nonresorbable membranes. Part 1: histologic results. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23:361-9.
  39. Wang F, Zhou W, Monje A, Huang W, Wang Y, Wu Y. Influence of healing period upon bone turn over on maxillary sinus floor augmentation grafted solely with deproteinized bovine bone mineral: a prospective human histological and clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. Forthcoming 2016.
  40. Mecall RA, Rosenfeld AL. Influence of residual ridge resorption patterns on implant fixture placement and tooth position. 1. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1991;11:8-23.
  41. McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol 2007;78:377-96. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.060048
  42. Sanz M, Vignoletti F. Key aspects on the use of bone substitutes for bone regeneration of edentulous ridges. Dent Mater 2015;31:640-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.03.005
  43. Aloy-Prosper A, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015;20:e251-8.
  44. Johansson B, Grepe A, Wannfors K, Aberg P, Hirsch JM. Volumetry of simulated bone grafts in the edentulous maxilla by computed tomography: an experimental study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001;30:153-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600600
  45. Nkenke E, Neukam FW. Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in advanced jaw resorption: morbidity, resorption and implant survival. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014;7 Suppl 2:S203-17.
  46. Restoy-Lozano A, Dominguez-Mompell JL, Infante-Cossio P, Lara-Chao J, Espin-Galvez F, Lopez-Pizarro V. Reconstruction of mandibular vertical defects for dental implants with autogenous bone block grafts using a tunnel approach: clinical study of 50 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;44:1416-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.05.019
  47. Keestra JA, Barry O, Jong L, Wahl G. Long-term effects of vertical bone augmentation: a systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24:3-17. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150357
  48. Waasdorp J, Reynolds MA. Allogeneic bone onlay grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:525-31.
  49. Raghoebar GM, Meijndert L, Kalk WW, Vissink A. Morbidity of mandibular bone harvesting: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:359-65.
  50. Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Husler J, Hammerle CH, Jung RE. EAO Supplement Working Group 4 - EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26 Suppl 11:154-69.
  51. Esposito M, Pellegrino G, Pistilli R, Felice P. Rehabilitation of postrior atrophic edentulous jaws: prostheses supported by 5 mm short implants or by longer implants in augmented bone? One-year results from a pilot randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2011;4:21-30.
  52. Gulje FL, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Single crowns in the resorbed posterior maxilla supported by either 6-mm implants or by 11-mm implants combined with sinus floor elevation surgery: a 1-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014;7:247-55.
  53. Pistilli R, Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Piatelli M, Corvino V, Barausse C, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year post-loading results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2013;6:359-72.
  54. Pistilli R, Felice P, Piattelli M, Gessaroli M, Soardi E, Barausse C, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 x 5 mm implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2013;6:343-57.
  55. Thoma DS, Haas R, Tutak M, Garcia A, Schincaglia GP, Hammerle CH. Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: demographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42:72-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12323
  56. Esposito M, Cannizzaro G, Soardi E, Pistilli R, Piattelli M, Corvino V, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm-long, 4 mm-wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. Preliminary results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2012;5:19-33.
  57. Felice P, Checchi V, Pistilli R, Scarano A, Pellegrino G, Esposito M. Bone augmentation versus 5-mm dental implants in posterior atrophic jaws. Four-month post-loading results from a randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2009;2:267-81.
  58. Simion M, Jovanovic SA, Tinti C, Benfenati SP. Long-term evaluation of osseointegrated implants inserted at the time or after vertical ridge augmentation. A retrospective study on 123 implants with 1-5 year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:35-45. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001035.x
  59. Simion M, Dahlin C, Rocchietta I, Stavropoulos A, Sanchez R, Karring T. Vertical ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration in association with dental implants: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:86-94.
  60. Rocchietta I, Fontana F, Simion M. Clinical outcomes of vertical bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:203-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01271.x
  61. Esposito M, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Felice P. Three-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014;7:383-95.
  62. Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Esposito M. Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: a randomised controlled trial with 5-year after loading follow-up. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014;7:359-69.
  63. Nisand D, Picard N, Rocchietta I. Short implants compared to implants in vertically augmented bone: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26 Suppl 11:170-9.

Cited by

  1. Cumulative Success Rate of Short and Ultrashort Implants Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Maxilla: A 3-Year Retrospective Study vol.2017, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8434281
  2. Trigeminal nerve injuries related to restorative treatment vol.45, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2018.45.6.522
  3. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Short Implants Placed in the Posterior Mandible: A 1-Year Pilot Split-Mouth Study vol.44, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-18-00037
  4. Mandibular Implant-supported Overdentures: Prosthetic Overview vol.6, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4103/sjmms.sjmms_101_17
  5. Prosthetic Rehabilitation of the Partially Edentulous Atrophic Posterior Mandible with Short Implants (≤ 8 mm) Compared with the Sandwich Osteotomy and Delayed Placement of Standard Length Implants ( vol.9, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2018.9202
  6. Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review vol.29, pp.suppl18, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13338
  7. Evaluation of the Cortical Deformation Induced by Distal Cantilevers Supported by Extra-Short Implants: A Finite Elements Analysis Study vol.10, pp.12, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10120762
  8. Fresh Frozen Allogeneic Bone Block in Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: Histomorphometric Analysis of a Bone Specimen Retrieved 15 Years after Grafting Procedure vol.9, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061119
  9. Microscope and micro‐camera assessment of Schneiderian membrane perforation via transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A randomized ex vivo study vol.30, pp.7, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13453
  10. Computed tomographic analysis of maxillary sinus anatomy relevant to sinus lift procedures in edentulous ridges in Taiwanese patients vol.49, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2019.49.4.237
  11. Single crown restorations supported by 6‐mm implants in the resorbed posterior mandible: A five‐year prospective case series vol.21, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12825
  12. Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.9, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029826
  13. Early implant failure: a retrospective analysis of contributing factors vol.49, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2019.49.5.287
  14. Platelet-Rich Plasma in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: Systematic Review vol.13, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13030622
  15. Assessment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues Conditions around Short and Ultra-Short Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A 3-Year Retrospective Study on Periodontally Healthy Patients and Patients with a Hist vol.17, pp.24, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249354
  16. Patient-reported outcomes of implant-assisted removable partial dentures with magnetic attachments using short implants: A prospective study vol.65, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.jpr_d_20_00221
  17. Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (&gt;8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis vol.9, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9030315
  18. Safety and Efficacy Results of BonoFill First-in-Human, Phase I/IIa Clinical Trial for the Maxillofacial Indication of Sinus Augmentation and Mandibular Bone Void Filling vol.79, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.12.010
  19. Adapting the Pore Size of Individual, 3D-Printed CPC Scaffolds in Maxillofacial Surgery vol.10, pp.12, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10122654
  20. Clinical, radiographic and restorative parameters for short tuberosity implants placed in smokers: a retrospective study with 5 year follow-up vol.109, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-021-00623-2