Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2024; 18(01): 097-103
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771028
Review Article

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Single Crowns or Short Fixed Partial Dentures Supported by Short (≤6 mm) Dental Implants: A Systematic Review

Sara Hashemi 
1   Dental Students Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
,
Shivasadat Tabatabaei 
2   The School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Kimia Baghaei 
1   Dental Students Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
,
Amirhossein Fathi
3   Dental Prosthodontics Department, Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
,
Ramin Atash
4   Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Long-term clinical outcomes of short dental implants (≤6 mm) supporting single crowns or short fixed partial dentures have been reported differently in different studies and need more clarification. This systematic study evaluated the rate of bone loss (BL), the durability of implants equal to or shorter than 6 mm supporting single crowns or short fixed partial dentures, and prosthetic-related side effects during 5 years of follow-up. Five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane) were electronically and manually searched for longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of 5 years or more until January 2023. The study question was, “Does the implant equal to or shorter than 6 mm affect BL and survival rate of the implant-supported prosthesis after 5 years of follow-up?”. From 752 identified articles, nine studies were selected for further evaluation. After 5 years of follow-up, most studies had more than 90% survival rate and the maximum BL was 0.54 mm. Still, in internal and external connections, these changes were not substantial. For example, screw loosening was the most common problem with implanted prostheses. Implants of 6 mm or shorter are a suitable treatment option in atrophic ridges with good durability and fewer side effects during a follow-up period of more than 5 years.

Keywords

crown - implant - review


Publication History

Article published online:
17 August 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Naert I, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Darius P. A six-year prosthodontic study of 509 consecutively inserted implants for the treatment of partial edentulism. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67 (02) 236-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Horikawa T, Odatsu T, Itoh T. et al. Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants with at least 25 years' function. Int J Implant Dent 2017; 3 (01) 42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Urban IA, Jovanovic SA, Lozada JL. Vertical ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration (GBR) in three clinical scenarios prior to implant placement: a retrospective study of 35 patients 12 to 72 months after loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 (03) 502-510
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Schwartz-Arad D, Ofec R, Eliyahu G, Ruban A, Sterer N. Long term follow-up of dental implants placed in autologous Onlay bone graft. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18 (03) 449-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fontana F, Maschera E, Rocchietta I, Simion M. Clinical classification of complications in guided bone regeneration procedures by means of a nonresorbable membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011; 31 (03) 265-273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kollek NJ, Pérez-Albacete Martínez C, Granero Marín JM, Maté Sánchez de Val JE. Prospective clinical study with new materials for tissue regeneration: a study in humans. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (03) 727-734
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Uijlenbroek HJJ, Liu Y, Wismeijer D. Gaining soft tissue with a hydrogel soft tissue expander: a case report. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (01) 255-260
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hashemi S, Tabatabaei S, Fathi A, Asadinejad SM, Atash R. Tooth Graft: an umbrella overview. Eur J Dent 2024; 18: 41-54
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pieri F, Forlivesi C, Caselli E, Corinaldesi G. Short implants (6mm) vs. vertical bone augmentation and standard-length implants (≥9mm) in atrophic posterior mandibles: a 5-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 46 (12) 1607-1614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Garaicoa-Pazmiño C, Suárez-López del Amo F, Monje A. et al. Influence of crown/implant ratio on marginal bone loss: a systematic review. J Periodontol 2014; 85 (09) 1214-1221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kotsovilis S, Fourmousis I, Karoussis IK, Bamia C. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of implant length on the survival of rough-surface dental implants. J Periodontol 2009; 80 (11) 1700-1718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Monje A, Fu JH, Chan HL. et al. Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Periodontol 2013; 84 (12) 1783-1791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. Clinical performance of short dental implants supporting single crown restoration in the molar-premolar region: cement versus screw retention. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (04) 969-976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Malchiodi L, Ricciardi G, Salandini A, Caricasulo R, Cucchi A, Ghensi P. Influence of crown-implant ratio on implant success rate of ultra-short dental implants: results of a 8- to 10-year retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24 (09) 3213-3222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Impact of platform switching on peri-implant bone remodeling around short implants in the posterior region, 1-year results from a split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16 (01) 70-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Anitua E, Alkhraist MH, Piñas L, Begoña L, Orive G. Implant survival and crestal bone loss around extra-short implants supporting a fixed denture: the effect of crown height space, crown-to-implant ratio, and offset placement of the prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (03) 682-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Anitua E, Piñas L, Orive G. Retrospective study of short and extra-short implants placed in posterior regions: influence of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone loss. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 (01) 102-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29 (Suppl. 03) 197-212 , discussion 232–233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kreissl ME, Gerds T, Muche R, Heydecke G, Strub JR. Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (06) 720-726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clinical oral implants research 2004; 15 (04) 401-412
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Barbier L, Schepers E. Adaptive bone remodeling around oral implants under axial and nonaxial loading conditions in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12 (02) 215-223
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Bone level changes proximal to oral implants supporting fixed partial prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13 (02) 162-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wennerberg A, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. Influence of occlusal factors on treatment outcome: a study of 109 consecutive patients with mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses opposing maxillary complete dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2001; 14 (06) 550-555
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 (Suppl. 02) 8-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Frost HMA. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod 2004; 74 (01) 3-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15 (04) 401-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Misch CE, Suzuki JB, Misch-Dietsh FM, Bidez MW. A positive correlation between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss: literature support. Implant Dent 2005; 14 (02) 108-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli V, Piattelli M, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long × 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. 3-year post-loading results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2018; 11 (02) 175-187
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pistilli R, Felice P, Cannizzaro G. et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year post-loading results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2013; 6 (04) 359-372
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Cannizzaro G, Felice P, Minciarelli AF, Leone M, Viola P, Esposito M. Early implant loading in the atrophic posterior maxilla: 1-stage lateral versus crestal sinus lift and 8 mm hydroxyapatite-coated implants. A 5-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2013; 6 (01) 13-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Maló PS, de Araújo Nobre MA, Lopes AV, Ferro AS. Retrospective cohort clinical investigation of a dental implant with a narrow diameter and short length for the partial rehabilitation of extremely atrophic jaws. J Oral Sci 2017; 59 (03) 357-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ravidà A, Wang I-C, Sammartino G. et al. Prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla, short (≤ 6 mm) or long (≥ 10 mm) dental implants? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis: Naples Consensus Report Working Group A. Implant Dent 2019; 28 (06) 590-602
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ravidà A, Barootchi S, Askar H, Suárez-López Del Amo F, Tavelli L, Wang H-L. Long-term effectiveness of extra-short (≤ 6 mm) dental implants: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (01) 68-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (04) 264-269 , W64
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA. et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1013-1020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Stone PW. Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl Nurs Res 2002; 15 (03) 197-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Slotte C, Grønningsaeter A, Halmøy AM. et al. Four-millimeter-long posterior-mandible implants: 5-year outcomes of a prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 (Suppl. 02) e385-e395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rossi F, Botticelli D, Cesaretti G, De Santis E, Storelli S, Lang NP. Use of short implants (6 mm) in a single-tooth replacement: a 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27 (04) 458-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Villarinho EA, Triches DF, Alonso FR, Mezzomo LAM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RSA. Risk factors for single crowns supported by short (6-mm) implants in the posterior region: A prospective clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19 (04) 671-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Rossi F, Lang NP, Ricci E, Ferraioli L, Marchetti C, Botticelli D. 6-mm-long implants loaded with fiber-reinforced composite resin-bonded fixed prostheses (FRCRBFDPs). A 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (12) 1478-1483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Thoma DS, Wolleb K, Schellenberg R, Strauss FJ, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE. Two short implants versus one short implant with a cantilever: 5-Year results of a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2021; 48 (11) 1480-1490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Thoma DS, Haas R, Tutak M, Garcia A, Schincaglia GP, Hämmerle CH. Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: demographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42 (01) 72-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Naenni N, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR. et al. Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2018; 97 (08) 887-892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Rossi F, Lang NP, Ricci E, Ferraioli L, Marchetti C, Botticelli D. Early loading of 6-mm-short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns—a prospective 5-year cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (04) 471-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Romeo E, Storelli S, Casano G, Scanferla M, Botticelli D. Six-mm versus 10-mm long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior edentulous jaws: a 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014; 7 (04) 371-381
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH, Yeh CY, Rudek I, Wang HL. Cross-sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22 (02) 201-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Guida L, Annunziata M, Esposito U, Sirignano M, Torrisi P, Cecchinato D. 6-mm-short and 11-mm-long implants compared in the full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: a 3-year multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31 (01) 64-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 von Allmen RS, Weiss S, Tevaearai HT. et al. Completeness of follow-up determines validity of study findings: results of a prospective repeated measures cohort study. PLoS One 2015; 10 (10) e0140817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Rangert BR, Sullivan RM, Jemt TM. Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12 (03) 360-370
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Wang T-M, Leu L-J, Wang J, Lin L-D. Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: a numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17 (02) 231-237
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Fathi A, Hashemi S, Tabatabaei S, Mosharraf R, Atash R. Adhesion to zirconia: an umbrella review. Int J Adhes Adhes 2023; 122: 103322
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Grande F, Cesare PM, Mochi Zamperoli E, Gianoli CM, Mollica F, Catapano S. Evaluation of tension and deformation in a mandibular toronto bridge anchored on three fixtures using different framework materials, abutment systems, and loading conditions: a FEM analysis. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (04) 1097-1105
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Vieira FR, Bitencourt SB, Rosa CDDRD, Vieira AB, Santos DMD, Goiato MC. Influence of different restoring materials on stress distribution in prosthesis on implants: a review of finite element studies. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (01) 1-6
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar