Clinical Assessment of Short (> 6 mm and ≤ 8.5 mm) Implants in Posterior Sites with an Average Follow-Up of 74 Months: A Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the survival and success rates of short (> 6 mm and ≤ 8.5 mm) implants after at least 2 years of functional loading. Implants were assessed using clinical parameters such as marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket depth (PD), keratinized mucosa width (KMW), bleeding on probing (BoP), and the peri-implant condition (mucositis or peri-implantitis). Any correlations between clinical parameters were analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational and retrospective study included 114 posterior maxillary and mandibular implants placed in 27 women and 38 men with a mean age of 68.04 ± 9.07 years. Patients included in the study had received at least one short implant between 2001 and 2013, such that each implant was in occlusal function for at least 2 years by 2015. Patients with only long (≥ 10 mm) implants, patients with any systemic condition, and smokers were excluded from the study. PD, KMW, peri-implant condition, BoP, and MBL were the clinical parameters assessed in the study. Data on prosthesis type (single or splinted) and implant features were also obtained. All data were submitted to analysis via Mann-Whitney unpaired test, with a significance level of P < .05. Spearman correlation coefficient was also measured to verify the negative or positive correlation. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 74.08 months, and mean implant success and survival rates were 87.63% and 94.74%, respectively. There were 6 implant failures (5.26%). A total of 66 (59.46%) prostheses were screw-retained implant-supported restorations, and 45 (40.54%) were cemented. A total of 93 (86.49%) short implants were splinted to another implant, and 15 out of 111 (13.51%) restorations were single implants. Keratinized mucosa was missing around 43 (39%) implants, whereas PD was measured to be between 0 and 3 mm in 64.86% of implants and ≥ 4 mm in 31.53% of implants. MBL was ≤ 1.5 mm in 71.17% of cases and > two-thirds the length of the implant in 2.71% of cases. Mucositis and peri-implantitis were found in 22.52% and 7.21% of implants, respectively. The correlation coefficient showed a positive result for PD and MBL (0.11; P = .368) and negative results for PD and KMW (-0.42; P = .002) and KMW and MBL (-0.19; P = .183). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it is possible to conclude that short implants are a feasible treatment option for dental rehabilitation. They are considered an excellent alternative to complex procedures and have high survival rates after at least 2 years of follow-up, with compatible peri-implant local tissue response. Moreover, a significant negative correlation between KMW and PD was observed.

Clinical Performance Comparing Titanium and Titanium-Zirconium or Zirconia Dental Implants: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare clinical results between titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), or titanium-zirconium (TZ) dental implants and to analyze survival rate (SR), bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD). DATA SOURCE: Manual and electronic searches were conducted (PubMed and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of at least two implant types (control and test group) within the same study. The focused question was determined according to the PICOT strategy. Seven studies were included out of 202 research studies initially found. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 80 months, and the mean age was from 43.3 to 65.8 years old. The SR for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants ranged from 92.6% to 100%, 95.8% to 100%, and 87.5% to 91.25%, respectively; MBL for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants varied from -1.17 mm to -0.125 mm for Ti, -0.6 mm to -0.32 mm for TZ, and -0.25 mm to -1.38 mm for Zr. Studies showed a low incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis; however, BoP for Zr was 16.43%, Ti ranged between 10% and 20%, and TZ from 10% to 13.8%. PD for Ti ranged from 1.6 mm to 3.05 mm, TZ was 3.12 mm (only one study), and Zr ranged from 2.21 mm to 2.6 mm. CONCLUSION: All three types of implants showed similar tissue behavior. However, the TZ group had better results when compared with Ti and Zr for SR, MBL, and BoP, except for PD. Furthermore, the worst SR was found in the Zr implants group.