Comparative evaluation of hard and soft tissue parameters by using short and standard dental implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of posterior mandible: a split mouth study

Can short implants be used for resorbed ridges

  • Dhananjay Singh Yadav Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, IMS, BHU Varanasi, India, India.
  • Farhan Durrani Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, IMS, BHU Varanasi, India, India.
  • Faizia Rahman | docfaiziarahman@gmail.com Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, IMS, BHU Varanasi, India, India.
  • Patricia Ome Borang Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, IMS, BHU Varanasi, India, India.
  • Shivam Kesarwani Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, IMS, BHU Varanasi, India, India.
  • S M Karthickraj Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, IMS, BHU Varanasi, India, India.

Abstract

Aim The length of fixtures is always standardized with the concept for better bone to implant contact and successful osseointegration. Lots of studies have justified the use of short implants of less than 10 mm as an alternative for resorbed ridges in maxilla and mandible. The present project was conducted to check the viability of short implants in complex prosthetic rehabilitations.


Materials and methods Eleven patients received a total of 18 short implants (3.3/6 mm - 4.2/9.5mm) and 18 standard implants (3.75/11 mm and 4.5/11.5 mm) in the posterior mandible. Marginal bone loss was evaluated immediately after the delivery of the prosthesis, then after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. Same measurements were done for standard implants as the study design was split mouth.


Results The survival rate of short implants 18 months after prosthesis delivery was 94.4% and it was 100% for standard implants. There was no significant difference between implants at the time intervals of 6 and 18 month’s post-delivery of crowns and bridges. Mean crestal bone loss was 1.77±0.22 mm and 2.03±0.21 mm for short and standard implants respectively at 18 months of follow up, which was statistically significant.  One short implant failure was seen before the loading of prosthesis.


Conclusion Short implants may be considered as an alternative for complex augmentation procedures in mandible and maybe in maxilla too. Patient should be educated before for the reduced survival rate of short implants compared to standard implants.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2019-03-01
Section
Articles
Keywords
Bone augmentation, Crestal bone loss, Long Implants, Short implants
Statistics
Abstract views: 280

pdf: 45
Share it