J Periodontal Implant Sci.  2017 Feb;47(1):2-12. 10.5051/jpis.2017.47.1.2.

Treatment concepts for the posterior maxilla and mandible: short implants versus long implants in augmented bone

• Thoma DS
• Cha JK
• Jung UW

• KMID: 2368882
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2017.47.1.2

Abstract

The aim of this narrative review is to describe treatment options for the posterior regions of the mandible and the maxilla, comparing short implants vs. longer implants in an augmented bone. The dental literature was screened for treatment options enabling the placement of dental implants in posterior sites with a reduced vertical bone height in the maxilla and the mandible. Short dental implants have been increasingly used recently, providing a number of advantages including reduced patient morbidity, shorter treatment time, and lower costs. In the posterior maxilla, sinus elevation procedures were for long considered to be the gold standard using various bone substitute materials and rendering high implant survival rates. More recently, implants were even placed without any further use of bone substitute materials, but the long-term outcomes have yet to be documented. Vertical bone augmentation procedures in the mandible require a relatively high level of surgical skill and allow the placement of standard-length dental implants by the use of autogenous bone blocks. Both treatment options, short dental implants, and standard-length implants in combination with vertical bone augmentation procedures, appear to result in predictable outcomes in terms of implant survival rates. According to recent clinical studies comparing the therapeutic options of short implants vs. long implants in augmented bone, the use of short dental implants leads to a number of advantages for the patients and the clinician.

Keyword

Alveolar ridge augmentation; Dental implants; Sinus floor augmentation

MeSH Terms

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
Bone Substitutes
Dental Implants
Humans
Mandible*
Maxilla*
Sinus Floor Augmentation
Survival Rate
Bone Substitutes
Dental Implants

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 (A) A treatment option for the posterior maxilla with a vertical bone height of 6–8 mm. (B, C) A short dental implant is recommended.

• 

  Figure 2 (A) A treatment option for the posterior maxilla with a vertical bone height of more than 8 mm. (B, C) A transcrestal sinus elevation approach can be chosen for a vertical ridge dimension exceeding 8 mm and if standard-length implants are the preferred option.

• 

  Figure 3 (A) A treatment option for the posterior mandible with a remaining ridge height of less than 8 mm. (B) Primary vertical bone augmentation should be performed, (C) followed by the placement of standard-length implants.

• 

  Figure 4 (A) A treatment option for the posterior mandible with a remaining ridge height of 8–10 mm. (B, C) A short dental implant is recommended.

• 

  Figure 5 (A) A treatment option for the posterior mandible with a vertical bone height of more than 10 mm. (B, C) Standard-length implants are recommended.

• 

  Figure 6 Decision-making process for the posterior maxilla and mandible.

Reference

1. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:Suppl 6. 2–21.

2. Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:Suppl 6. 22–38.

3. van Velzen FJ, Ofec R, Schulten EA, Ten Bruggenkate CM. 10-year survival rate and the incidence of peri-implant disease of 374 titanium dental implants with a SLA surface: a prospective cohort study in 177 fully and partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26:1121–1128.

4. Annunziata M, Guida L. The effect of titanium surface modifications on dental implant osseointegration. Front Oral Biol. 2015; 17:62–77.

5. Bahrami B, Shahrbaf S, Mirzakouchaki B, Ghalichi F, Ashtiani M, Martin N. Effect of surface treatment on stress distribution in immediately loaded dental implants--a 3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:e89–97.

6. Mendonça JA, Francischone CE, Senna PM, Matos de Oliveira AE, Sotto-Maior BS. A retrospective evaluation of the survival rates of splinted and non-splinted short dental implants in posterior partially edentulous jaws. J Periodontol. 2014; 85:787–794.

7. Monje A, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, García-Nogales A, Fu JH, Wang HL. A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25:1119–1124.

8. Lee JS, Kim HM, Kim CS, Choi SH, Chai JK, Jung UW. Long-term retrospective study of narrow implants for fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24:847–852.

9. Manresa C, Bosch M, Echeverría JJ. The comparison between implant stability quotient and bone-implant contact revisited: an experiment in Beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25:1213–1221.

10. Shin SY, Shin SI, Kye SB, Hong J, Paeng JY, Chang SW, et al. The effects of defect type and depth, and measurement direction on the implant stability quotient value. J Oral Implantol. 2015; 41:652–656.

11. Al-Juboori MJ, AbdulRahaman SB, Hassan A. The correlation between crestal bone resorption and implant stability during healing period using resonance frequency analysis. Implant Dent. 2013; 22:351–355.

12. Gehrke SA, Maté Sánchez de Val JE, Fernández Domínguez M, de Aza Moya PN, Gómez Moreno G, Calvo Guirado JL. Effects on the osseointegration of titanium implants incorporating calcium-magnesium: a resonance frequency and histomorphometric analysis in rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Implants Res. Forthcoming. 2016.

13. Dagher M, Mokbel N, Jabbour G, Naaman N. Resonance frequency analysis, insertion torque, and bone to implant contact of 4 implant surfaces: comparison and correlation study in sheep. Implant Dent. 2014; 23:672–678.

14. Degidi M, Perrotti V, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. Mineralized bone-implant contact and implant stability quotient in 16 human implants retrieved after early healing periods: a histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25:45–48.

15. Isidor F. Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal overload or plaque accumulation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997; 8:1–9.

16. Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7:143–152.

17. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17:Suppl 2. 35–51.

18. Renouard F, Nisand D. Short implants in the severely resorbed maxilla: a 2-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7:Suppl 1. S104–10.

19. Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants subjected to static load of different duration. A study in the dog (III). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:552–558.

20. Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants with different surface characteristics subjected to static load. A study in the dog (II). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:196–201.

21. Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants subjected to static load. A study in the dog (I). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:1–8.

22. Blanes RJ, Bernard JP, Blanes ZM, Belser UC. A 10-year prospective study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. II: influence of the crown-to-implant ratio and different prosthetic treatment modalities on crestal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:707–714.

23. Annibali S, Cristalli MP, Dell’Aquila D, Bignozzi I, La Monaca G, Pilloni A. Short dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012; 91:25–32.

24. Atieh MA, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, Cooper LF. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27:1323–1331.

25. Neldam CA, Pinholt EM. State of the art of short dental implants: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14:622–632.

26. Sun HL, Huang C, Wu YR, Shi B. Failure rates of short (≤ 10 mm) dental implants and factors influencing their failure: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26:816–825.

27. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol. 2011; 38:667–676.

28. Quaranta A, Piemontese M, Rappelli G, Sammartino G, Procaccini M. Technical and biological complications related to crown to implant ratio: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2014; 23:180–187.

29. Sahrmann P, Naenni N, Jung RE, Held U, Truninger T, Hämmerle CH, et al. Success of 6-mm implants with single-tooth restorations: a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res. 2016; 95:623–628.

30. Mertens C, Meyer-Bäumer A, Kappel H, Hoffmann J, Steveling HG. Use of 8-mm and 9-mm implants in atrophic alveolar ridges: 10-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27:1501–1508.

31. Deporter D, Pharoah M, Yeh S, Todescan R, Atenafu EG. Performance of titanium alloy sintered porous-surfaced (SPS) implants supporting mandibular overdentures during a 20-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25:e189–95.

32. Jensen SS, Terheyden H. Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:Suppl. 218–236.

33. Del Fabbro M, Corbella S, Weinstein T, Ceresoli V, Taschieri S. Implant survival rates after osteotome-mediated maxillary sinus augmentation: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14:Suppl 1. e159–68.

34. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35:Suppl. 216–240.

35. Silva LD, de Lima VN, Faverani LP, de Mendonça MR, Okamoto R, Pellizzer EP. Maxillary sinus lift surgery-with or without graft material? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45:1570–1576.

36. Del Fabbro M, Wallace SS, Testori T. Long-term implant survival in the grafted maxillary sinus: a systematic review. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013; 33:773–783.

37. Boffano P, Forouzanfar T. Current concepts on complications associated with sinus augmentation procedures. J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25:e210–2.

38. Fugazzotto PA. GBR using bovine bone matrix and resorbable and nonresorbable membranes. Part 1: histologic results. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003; 23:361–369.

39. Wang F, Zhou W, Monje A, Huang W, Wang Y, Wu Y. Influence of healing period upon bone turn over on maxillary sinus floor augmentation grafted solely with deproteinized bovine bone mineral: a prospective human histological and clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. Forthcoming. 2016.

40. Mecall RA, Rosenfeld AL. Influence of residual ridge resorption patterns on implant fixture placement and tooth position. 1. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1991; 11:8–23.

41. McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol. 2007; 78:377–396.

42. Sanz M, Vignoletti F. Key aspects on the use of bone substitutes for bone regeneration of edentulous ridges. Dent Mater. 2015; 31:640–647.

43. Aloy-Prósper A, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015; 20:e251–8.

44. Johansson B, Grepe A, Wannfors K, Aberg P, Hirsch JM. Volumetry of simulated bone grafts in the edentulous maxilla by computed tomography: an experimental study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001; 30:153–156.

45. Nkenke E, Neukam FW. Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in advanced jaw resorption: morbidity, resorption and implant survival. Eur J Oral Implantology. 2014; 7:Suppl 2. S203–17.

46. Restoy-Lozano A, Dominguez-Mompell JL, Infante-Cossio P, Lara-Chao J, Espin-Galvez F, Lopez-Pizarro V. Reconstruction of mandibular vertical defects for dental implants with autogenous bone block grafts using a tunnel approach: clinical study of 50 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44:1416–1422.

47. Keestra JA, Barry O, Jong L, Wahl G. Long-term effects of vertical bone augmentation: a systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24:3–17.

48. Waasdorp J, Reynolds MA. Allogeneic bone onlay grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25:525–531.

49. Raghoebar GM, Meijndert L, Kalk WW, Vissink A. Morbidity of mandibular bone harvesting: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22:359–365.

50. Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hüsler J, Hämmerle CH, Jung RE. EAO Supplement Working Group 4 - EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26:Suppl 11. 154–169.

51. Esposito M, Pellegrino G, Pistilli R, Felice P. Rehabilitation of postrior atrophic edentulous jaws: prostheses supported by 5 mm short implants or by longer implants in augmented bone? One-year results from a pilot randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantology. 2011; 4:21–30.

52. Guljé FL, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Single crowns in the resorbed posterior maxilla supported by either 6-mm implants or by 11-mm implants combined with sinus floor elevation surgery: a 1-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology. 2014; 7:247–255.

53. Pistilli R, Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Piatelli M, Corvino V, Barausse C, 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; 6:359–372.

54. Pistilli R, Felice P, Piattelli M, Gessaroli M, Soardi E, Barausse C, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 x 5 mm implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology. 2013; 6:343–357.

55. 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; 42:72–80.

56. Esposito M, Cannizzaro G, Soardi E, Pistilli R, Piattelli M, Corvino V, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm-long, 4 mm-wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. Preliminary results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology. 2012; 5:19–33.

57. Felice P, Checchi V, Pistilli R, Scarano A, Pellegrino G, Esposito M. Bone augmentation versus 5-mm dental implants in posterior atrophic jaws. Four-month post-loading results from a randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantology. 2009; 2:267–281.

58. Simion M, Jovanovic SA, Tinti C, Benfenati SP. Long-term evaluation of osseointegrated implants inserted at the time or after vertical ridge augmentation. A retrospective study on 123 implants with 1–5 year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:35–45.

59. Simion M, Dahlin C, Rocchietta I, Stavropoulos A, Sanchez R, Karring T. Vertical ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration in association with dental implants: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:86–94.

60. Rocchietta I, Fontana F, Simion M. Clinical outcomes of vertical bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35:Suppl. 203–215.

61. Esposito M, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Felice P. Three-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws. Eur J Oral Implantology. 2014; 7:383–395.

62. Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Esposito M. Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: a randomised controlled trial with 5-year after loading follow-up. Eur J Oral Implantology. 2014; 7:359–369.

63. Nisand D, Picard N, Rocchietta I. Short implants compared to implants in vertically augmented bone: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26:Suppl 11. 170–179.