LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 28 , Issue 1
January/February 2013

Pages 170177


A Prospective Clinical Study to Evaluate Early Success of Short Implants

Kelly S. Kennedy, DDS, MS/Elizabeth Matteson Jones, DDS/Do-Gyoon Kim, PhD/Edwin A. McGlumphy, DDS, MS/Nancy L. Clelland, DMD, MS


PMID: 23377063
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2810

Purpose: Short implants are an alternative to bone augmentation procedures for patients with reduced bone height. This study evaluated the success of short implants in posterior locations prior to loading. Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients received at least four Astra Tech implants in symmetric posterior locations. Implants (n = 82) ranged from 6 to 11 mm with 70 implants ≤ 9 mm and 38 implants = 6 mm. Placement was planned virtually using software and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Computer-generated guides were ordered for all patients; however, lack of interarch distance precluded their use for five patients. In these situations, guides were used to communicate pilot drill position only. Osteotomies were prepared using the guides and accompanying drill sequence following a two-stage surgical approach. Degree of bone mineralization (DBM) parameters for implant osteotomy sites were measured using three-dimensional CBCT images taken before and after implant placement. A paired t test was performed to compare the DBM parameters between failed and successful implantation sites. Results: Early failure occurred for 7 out of 82 implants or 8.5%. All of the failed implants were 6 mm in length and placed using computer-aided design/ computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) surgical guides. Three failures occurred in one patient. Bone grafting was done for failed implant sites, and after healing, new implants were placed using conventional surgical guides. No further failures occurred. The most frequent value (peak) for DBM was significantly higher for failed implant sites than for successful ones (paired t test, P = .043). Conclusion: Current failures suggest that CAD/CAM guides used with external irrigation may pose a greater risk for the success of 6-mm implants placed in posterior areas with advanced bone loss. This may be due to the bone density in these highly resorbed areas combined with limited irrigation reaching the osteotomy sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:170177. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2810

Key words: short implants, failure, bone density


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help