Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(4) > 1034607

TOOLS
Lee, Kim, Choi, Kim, and Oh: A systematic review of the survival rate on short implants
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(4):457-462.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.4.457

A systematic review of the survival rate on short implants

Eun-Jeong Lee, DDS, MS1, Won Kim, DDS1, Ji-Young Choi, DDS1, Seong-Mi Kim, DDS1, Nam-Sik Oh, DDS, DMS, PhD2, ∗

1Graduate Student, Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University

2Associate Professor, Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University

∗Corresponding Author: Namsik Oh Department of Dentistry, Collage of Medicine, Inha University 7-206 3ga Shinhung-dong, Jung-gu, Incheon, 400-711, Korea +82-53-890-2470: e-mail, onsdo@inha.ac.kr

Received 12 September 200919 October 2009       Accepted 12 October 2009

Copyright © 2009 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this systematic review was to obtain the comprehensive survival rates of short implants. Then it was examined that whether treatment using short implants has favorable results.

Methods

A MEDLINE search was performed, the data obtained from many articles about length, diameter, site of placement, surface treatment and prosthetic design were analyzed.

Results and discussion

The data obtained from many articles were analyzed, and it was found that the survival rate of short implants was 95.87%, short implants has similar outcomes to those reported for standard implants. On the other hand, in the comparison the survival rate of 3 groups divided by the diameter of implants under 4 mm, 4 - 5 mm, and above 5 mm, a statistically significant difference was detected in under 4mm group. In implant group with 6 - 7 mm length, a group with 5 - 6 mm diameter has survival rate of 97.01%, groups with 3.1 - 4.8 mm diameter has survival rate of 92.96%, which was statistically significantly different. In the result of surface feature, the roughed surface groups of short implant showed a higher survival rate by approximately 6.3% than machined surface group. In the result of prosthetic design, survival rate of short implant was considerably lower for the single implant crown group (94.3%) than splinting group (99.4%). (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47:457-62)

Keywords: Implant, Short, Length, Diameter, Surface feature, Inserted site

REFERENCES

1.Lindquist LW., Carlsson GE., Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses suppoted by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996. 7:329–36.
2.Lemmerman KJ., Lemmerman NE. Osseointegrated dental implants in private practice: A long-term case series study. J Periodontol. 2005. 76:310–9.
crossref
3.Strong JT., Misch CE., Birdez MW., Nalluri P. Functional surface area: Thread form parameter optimization for implant body design. Compendium. 19:1998.
4.Schnitman PA., Rubenstein JE., Who ¨rle PS., Dasilva JD., Koch GG. Implants for partial edentulism. J Dent Educ. 1988. 52:725–38.
crossref
5.Minsk L., Polson A., Weisgold A., Rose LF., Sanavi F., Baumgarten H., Listgarten MA. Outcome failures of endosseous implants from a clinical training center. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1996. 17:848–56.
6.Lekholm U., Gro ¨ndahl K., Jemt T. Outcome of oral implant treatment in partially edentulous jaws followed 20 years in clinical function. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006. 8:178–86.
crossref
7.Weinberg LA., Kruger B. An evaluation of torque (moment) on implant/prosthesis with staggered buccal and lingual offset. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1996. 16:252–65.
8.Lum LB., Osier JF. Load transfer from endosteal implants to supporting bone: an analysis using statics. Part one: Horizontal loading. J Oral Implantol. 1992. 18:343–53.
9.Lum LB. A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol. 1991. 17:126–31.
10.Sertgo ¨z A., Gu ¨vener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 76:165–9.
11.Davarpanah M., Martinez H., Etienne D., Zabalegui I., Mattout P., Chiche F., Michel JF. A prospective multicenter evaluation of 1,583 3i implants: 1- to 5-year data. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002. 17:820–8.
12.Goene 、R., Bianchesi C., Hu ¨erzeler M., Del Lupo R., Testori T., Davarpanah M., Jalbout Z. Performance of short implants in partial restorations: 3-year follow-up of Osseotite implants. Implant Dent. 2005. 14:274–80.
13.Feldman S., Boitel N., Weng D., Kohles SS., Stach RM. Five-year survival distributions of short-length (10 mm or less) machined-surfaced and Osseotite implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004. 6:16–23.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Search strategy.
jkap-47-457f1.tif
Table I.
Exclusion criteria
No detailed information on length of implants
Reporting only on surgical technique or orthodontic screw
Articles that short implants is not used and reports using finite element analysis
The publications do not report in English
Table II.
Significance level (P-value) between 3 groups
  7.5 - 8.5 mm 9 - 12 mm
6 - 7 mm P < 0.0001∗ P < .0001∗
7.5 - 8.5 mm   P = .9679

∗ Statistically significant difference relative to group. (P < .05)

Table III.
Survival rate according to diameter (mm) of short implants (failed implants)
Diameter (mm) 3.3 - 3.75 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 6.5
Total 539 (29) 268 (7) 335 (13) 7 (2)
(%) 94.61 97.38 96.11 71.42

(%): Survival rates

Table IV.
Survival rate according to inserted site of short implants (Failed implants)
  Mx. Anterior Mx. Posterior Mn. Anterior Mn. Posterior
    3 (3)   2 (1)
  18 (4) 113 (6)   277 (3)
  Mx. 2 (0)   Mn. 3 (0)  
  3 (0) 87 (7) 62 (0) 152 (0)
    54 (3)   242 (10)
        48 (0)
Total 22 (4) 257 (19) 62 (0) 721 (14)
(%) 81.81 92.6 100 98.05

(%): Survival rates Mx.: Maxilla, Mn.: Mandible

Table VI.
Survival rate according to prosthetic design of short implants (Failed implants)
  Single Splint Overdenture
  15 (2) 81 (0)  
  13 (2) 116 (0) 126 (1)
  14 (0) 419 (0) 99 (1)
  29 (0) 82 (4)  
Total 71 (4) 698 (4) 225 (2)
(%) 94.36 99.42 99.11

(%): Survival rates

Table V.
Survival rate according to surface of fixture of short implants (Failed implants)
  Machined TPS SLA Oxidized Acid etched
  116 (8)        
5 (4)          
272 (13) 136 (0)        
  5 (0)        
260 (17)          
111 (18)          
54 (4) 42 (1)        
    83 (3)      
253 (7)          
  106 (2)        
  22 (1)        
532 (2)          
48 (0)          
60 (4) 51 (0)        
Total 818 (64) 361 (11) 240 (5) 183 (1) 554 (3)
(%) 92.17 96.95 97.91 99.45 99.45

(%): Survival rates TPS: Titanium plasma spray, SLA: Sandblasted with large grit and acid etched

TOOLS
Similar articles