Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
MedNext Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
Review
DOI: 10.54448/mdnt22S304
Submitted: 08-05-2022
Published: 08-05-2022

Major clinical findings of short implants and virtual surgery: a systematic review

UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Implantology Short implants Success Score Virtual surgery

Abstract

Introduction: After the confirmation and publication of the phenomenon known as osseointegration by Brånemark, dental implants have been used to repair total and partial edentulous jaws. However, the implants were long and had to be longer than 11 mm to be considered functional. Short implants compared to long ones require less remaining bone, reducing the patient's exposure to surgeries for bone grafting, the elevation of the maxillary sinus mucosa, and repositioning of the inferior alveolar nerve. Added to this, several dental treatments have benefited from this digital advance. Objective: To review the literature on short implants installed in both dental arches, evaluating their advantages, disadvantages, indications, and contraindications in the context of virtual surgery. Methods: The present study followed a systematic review model (PRISMA). The search strategy was performed in the PubMed, Scielo, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Results: A total of 110 articles were found, 64 articles were evaluated and 35 were rejected for not meeting the GRADE classification, and only 29 articles were used in this study to compose the textual part. Based on these findings, it was found that in remote years, authors reported that regions with reduced bone height are favored with the use of short implants not only because of their dimensions but also because of their surface treatment, which suggests that it is an important factor for achieving 100% success rates. The advantages of short implants are related to the simplicity of the technique, installation of implants in remaining bone, avoidance of bone grafts that present questionable results in the increases in height of the posterior alveolar ridge of the mandible, reduction of treatment time, and reduction of costs for the patient. A systematic review and meta-analysis studies analyzed the accuracy of implant placement using computer-guided surgery. A randomized study compared the precision of guided planning of new computer-assisted implant placement techniques, based on models that use CAD/CAM. Conclusion: It was concluded that short implants are a reliable, safe, and practical alternative to be used in any necessary location or situation. They do not show bone loss or resorption over the years, nor are they at risk of fracture or any damage to patients. They are safe to use, as long as they have an adequate design, therefore, fundamental tools in the dental clinic.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Souza FA, Aranega AM, Ponzoni D, Benetti F, Martins BB, Maciel J, Sanchez MDPR, Garcia Júnior IG. Reabilitação protética de mandíbula atrófica por meio de implantes curtos. Relato de caso clínico com oito anos de acompanhamento. ImplantNews, 2013, v.10, n.4, jul-ago.
  2. Cannata M, Grandi T, Samarani R, Svezia L, Grandi G. A comparison of two implants with conical vs internal hex connections: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(2):161-168.
  3. Kovacic I, Persic S, Kranjcic J, Lesic N, Celebic A. Rehabilitation of an Extremely Resorbed Edentulous Mandible by Short and Narrow Dental Implants. Case Rep Dent. 2018 Dec 20;2018:7597851. doi: 10.1155/2018/7597851.
  4. Lorenz J, Blume M, Korzinskas T, Ghanaati S, Sader RA. Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study. Int J Implant Dent. 2019, Jan 22;5(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s40729-018-0155-1.
  5. Galvão FFSA, Almeida-Júnior AA, Faria-Júnior NB, Caldas SCFR et al. Previsibilidade de implantes curtos: revisão de literatura. RSBO, 2011, v.8, n.1, p. 81-8.
  6. Greenberg AM. Digital technologies for dental implant treatment planning and guided surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2015 May;27(2):319-40. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2015.01.010. PMID: 25951962.
  7. Smitkarn P, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. The accuracy of single-tooth implants placed using fully digital-guided surgery and freehand implant surgery. J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Sep;46(9):949-957. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13160. Epub 2019 Jul 19. PMID: 31241782.
  8. Chen P, Nikoyan L. Guided Implant Surgery: A Technique Whose Time Has Come. Dent Clin North Am. 2021 Jan;65(1):67-80. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2020.09.005. Epub 2020 Nov 2. PMID: 33213716.
  9. Mazaro JVQ, Godoy Pai, Junior JFS, Mello CC, Pellizzer EP, Zavanelli AC; Regeneração óssea guiada em implantodontia: relato de caso; RFO, Passo Fundo, 2014, v. 19, n. 1, p. 121-128.
  10. Tahmaseb A, WU V, Wismeijer D, et al. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018, 29(Suppl 16):416–35.
  11. Seo C, Juodzbalys G. Accuracy of guided surgery via stereolithographic mucosa-supported surgical guide in implant surgery for edentulous patient: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res; 2018, 9:e1.
  12. Ten Bruggenkate et al. Short (6-mm) nonsubmerged dental implants: results of a Multicenter clinical trial of 1 to 7 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1998, v.13, n.6, p.791-98.
  13. Misch CE. Implantes dentários contemporâneos. 2. ed. São Paulo: Santos; 2000.
  14. Carvalho PSP, Garcia Júnior IR. Opções de tratamento de mandíbula posterior parcialmente desdentada - Parte I – Opções cirúrgicas. ImplantNews, 2006, v.3, n.2, p. 114-7.
  15. Perelli M, Abundo R, Corrente G, Saccone C. Short (5 and 7mm long) porous implants in the posterior atrophic mandible: a 5-year report of a prospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol, 2011, v.4, n.4, p.363-368.
  16. Annibali S, Cristalli MP, Dell'Aquila D, Bignozzi I, La Monaca G, Pilloni A. Short dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012, v.91, n.1, p.25-32.
  17. Chang SH, Lin CL, Hsue SS, Lin E Huang YS SR. Biomechanical analysis of the effects of implant diameter and bone quality in short implants placed in the atrophic posterior maxilla. Medical Engineering & Physics, 2012, v.34, p.153-160.
  18. Monje A, Suarez F, Moreno PG, Nogales AG. et al. A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10mm) for implant-suppported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Impl Res, 2013, v.1, p.1-6.
  19. Srinivasan M, Vazquez L, Rieder P, Moraguez O. et al. Survival rates of short (6mm) micro-rough surface implants: a review of literature and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2014, v.25, p.539-545.
  20. Bover-Ramos F, Viña-Almunia J, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Accuracy of Implant Placement with Computer-Guided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cadaver, Clinical, and In Vitro Studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 January/February;33(1):101–115. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5556. Epub 2017 Jun 20. PMID: 28632253.
  21. Jorba-García A, González-Barnadas A, Camps-Font O, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 May;25(5):2479-2494. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03833-8. Epub 2021 Feb 26. PMID: 33635397.
  22. Søndergaard K, Hosseini M, Storgård Jensen S, Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen K. Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Sep;32(9):1072-1084. doi: 10.1111/clr.13802. Epub 2021 Jul 5. PMID: 34166539.
  23. Barbosa JR, Ferreira JRM, Dias ECLCM. Implantes curtos: uma opção para regiões atróficas e fatores que influenciam os seus índices de sucesso. ImplantNews, 2012, v.9, n.1, p.86-92.
  24. Barboza E. et al. Desempenho clínico dos implantes curtos: um estudo retrospectivo de seis anos. Periodontia 2007; 17(2):16-21.
  25. Felice P, Soardi E, Pellegrino G, Pistilli R, Marchetti C, Gessaroli M, Esposito M. Treatment of the atrophic edentulous maxila: short implants versus bone augmentation for placing longer implants. Five-month post-loading results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol, 2011, v.4, n.3, p.191-202.
  26. Santiago Júnior JF. et al. Implantes dentais curtos: alternativa conservadora na reabilitação bucal. Rev. Cir. Traumatol. Buco-Maxilo-fac., 2010, v.10, n.2, p.67-76.
  27. Rettore Júnior R, Bruno IO, Limonge Neto CC. Abordagem biomecânica como forma de favorecer e estabelecer o uso de implantes curtos. ImplantNews, 2009, v.6, n.5, p.543-9.
  28. Silva LPM, De Deus G, Bela AC, Tosta A, Bassole R. Reabilitação de região posterior de mandíbula com implantes curtos. Jornal ILAPEO, 2013, v.7, n.1, p.6-15.
  29. Speratti D. O uso de implantes curtos em reabilitações complexas. In: SALLUM AW, et al. Periodontologia e implantodontia. Soluções estéticas e recursos clínicos. Nova Odessa/SP: Napoleão, 2010.

How to Cite

Campos de Vasconcelos, J. B., Rocha, S. C. A., & Manzini, R. (2022). Major clinical findings of short implants and virtual surgery: a systematic review. MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 3(S3). https://doi.org/10.54448/mdnt22S304