Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of crown–implant ratio on implant success rate of ultra-short dental implants: results of a 8- to 10-year retrospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The use of short implants has been suggested in recent years as an option for facilitating prosthetic restoration in resorbed jawbones. The aim of the present study was to determine how implant success rate is affected in the long term when ultra-short implants are rehabilitated with fixed restorations, resulting in a crown to implant (C/I) ratio of more than 3:1.

Materials and methods

The study was conducted as an analysis on all patients operated from December 2005 to November 2007 with ultra-short dental implants. All implants were sintered porous-surfaced (SPS) with a length of 5 mm and a diameter of 5 mm (5 × 5 mm) and were restored with a single crown or a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). Data collected included implant positioning site, crestal bone levels (CBL), and clinical and anatomical C/I ratios, and pre-established success criteria were used to evaluate the success rate of the implants. Statistical analysis was used to determine any significant differences or correlations (p = 0.05).

Results

Forty-one patients completed the follow-up and were eligible for this retrospective study on a total of 50 ultra-short SPS implants. The mean follow-up was 9.5 years (range 8.3 to 10.2 years). Three of the 50 implants failed because they were lost due to peri-implantitis, while all the other 47 met the pre-established success criteria giving an overall implant success rate of 94%. During the follow-up period, the mean peri-implant bone loss (PBL) was 0.41 + 0.36 mm.

Conclusions

This study shows that ultra-short SPS implants can prove a reliable solution for prosthetic restoration in patients with severe alveolar bone atrophy. In selected patients with a sufficient bone width, ultra-short implants with a resulting C/I ratio of more than 3:1 presented no contraindications.

Clinical relevance

In selected cases, ultra-short implants may represent an alternative to bone augmentation procedures and a long-term predictable solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Felice P, Checchi V, Pistilli R, Scarano A, Pellegrino G, Esposito M (2009) 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 Implantol 2:267–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anitua E, Orive G, Aguirre JJ, Andἱa I (2008) Five-year clinical evaluation of short dental implants placed in posterior areas: a retrospective study. J Periodontol 79:42–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Misch CE, Steignga J, Barboza E, Misch-Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C (2006) Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study. J Periodontol 77:1340–1347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Romeo E, Bivio A, Mosca D, Scanferla M, Ghisolfi M, Storelli S (2010) The use of short dental implants in clinical practice: literature review. Minerva Stomatol 59(1–2):23–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Strietzel FP, Reichart PA (2007) Oral rehabilitation using Camlog screw-cylinder implants with a particle-blasted and acid-etched microstructured surface. Results from a prospective study with special consideration of short implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:591–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hagi D, Deporter DA, Pilliar RM, Arenovich T (2004) A targeted review of study outcomes with short (≤7 mm) endosseous dental implants placed in partially edentulous patients. J Periodontol 75:798–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Das Neves FD, Fones D, Bernardes SR, do Prado CJ, Neto AJ (2006) Short implants—an analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 21:86–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nisand D, Renouard F (2014) Short implant in limited bone volume. Periodontology 2000:72–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Higuchi KW, Folmer T, Kultje C (1995) Implant survival rates in partially edentulous patients: a 3-year prospective multicenter study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Testori T, Wiseman L, Wolfe S et al (2001) A prospective multicenter clinical study of the Osseotite implant: four-year interim report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:193

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P et al (1999) Survival of the Branemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:639

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tawil G, Younan R (2003) Clinical evaluation of short, machine-surface implants followed for 12 to 92 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:894

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Steenberghe D, De Mars G, Quirynen M et al (2000) A prospective split-mouth comparative study of two screw-shaped self-tapping pure titanium implant systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Misch CE (2005) Short dental implants: a literature review and rationale for use. Dent Today 24:64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D et al (2003) A prospective multi-center clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:417

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Duyck J (2002) Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part I: a longitudinal clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. De Bruyn H, Collaert B, Linden U et alClinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7-year prospective follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res 10:139, 1999

  20. Jemt T, Lekholm U (1995) Implant treatment in edentulous maxillae: a 5-year follow-up report on patients with different degrees of jaw resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 10:303

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Saadoun AP, Le Gall MG (1996) An 8-year compilation of clinical results obtained with Steri-Oss endosseous implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent 17:669

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Spiekermann H (1995) Special diagnostic methods for implant patients. In: Rateitschak KH, Wolf HF (eds) Implantology, 95. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rangert B, Eng M, Sullivan R, Jemt T (1997) Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:360–370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Glantz PO, Nilner K (1998) Biomechanical aspects of prosthetic implant-borne reconstructions. Periodontology 2000(17):119–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rokni S, Todescan R, Watson P, Pharoah M, Adegbembo AO, Deporter D (2005) An assessment of crown-to-root ratios with short sintered porous-surfaced implants supporting prostheses in partially edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants:69–76

  26. Tawil G, Aboujaoude N, Younan R (2006) Influence of prosthetic parameters on the survival and complication rates of short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants:275–282

  27. Blanes RJ (2009) To what extent does the crown-implant ratio affect the survival and complications of implant-supported reconstructions? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res:67–72

  28. Malchiodi L, Cucchi A, Ghensi P, Consonni D, Nocini PF (2014) Influence of crown-implant ratio on implant success rates and crestal bone levels: a 36-month follow-up prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(2):240–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Malchiodi L, Balzani L, Cucchi A, Ghensi P, Nocini PF (2016) Primary and secondary stability of implants in postextraction and healed sites: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31(6):1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4710

  30. Buser D, Weber HP, Bragger U, Balsiger C (1994) Tissue integration of one-stage implants: 3-year results of a prospective longitudinal study with hollow cylinder and hollow screw implants. Qiuntessence Int 679–686

  31. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA (1998) Determinants of correct clinical reporting. Int J Prosthodont:517–521

  32. Deporter D, Ogiso B, Sohn DS, Ruljancich K, Pharoah M (2008) Ultrashort sintered porous-surfaced dental implants used to replace posterior teeth. J Periodontol:1280–1286

  33. Deporter DA, Watson PA, Booker D (1996) Simplifyng the treatment of edentulism: a new type of implant. Clinical Practice:1343–1348

  34. Pilliar RM (1998) Overview of surface variability of metallic endosseous dental implants: textures and porous surface structured designs. Implant Dent:305–314

  35. Bruggenkate C, Asikainen P, Foitzik C, Krekeler G, Sutter F (1998) Short (6-mm) non submerged dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants:791–798

  36. Friberg B, Grondahl K, Lekholm U, Branemark PI (2000) Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Branemark implants. Clin Imp Dent and Rel Res:184–189

  37. Malo P, Araujo M, Rangert B, MechEng (2007) Short implants placed one-stage in maxillae and mandibles: a retrospective clinical study with 1 to 9 years of follow-up. Clin Imp Dent and Rel Res:15–21

  38. Anitua E, Orive G, Aguirre JJ, Andia I (2010) Short implants in maxillae and mandibles: a retrospective study with 1 to 8 years of follow-up. J Periodontol:819–825

  39. Si LHG, Zhuang LF, Shen H, Liu Y, Wismeijer D (2013) Long-term outcomes of short dental implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: a clinical retrospective study of 5–10 years. Clin Oral Implants Res:230–237

  40. Sivolella S, Stellini E, Testori T, Di Fiore A, Berengo B, Lops D (2013) Splinted and unsplinted short implant in mandibles: a retrospective evaluation with 5 to 16 years of follow-up. J Periodontol:502–512

  41. Anitua E, Begona L, Orive G (2014) Long-term retrospective evaluation of short implants in the posterior areas: clinical results after 10-12 years. J Clin Periodontol:404–411

  42. Rossi F, Botticelli D, Cesaretti G, De Santis E, Storelli S, Lang NP (2015) 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:458–464

  43. Rossi F, Lang NP, Ricci E, Ferraioli L, Marchetti C, Botticelli D (2016) Early loading of 6-mm short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns—a prospective 5-year cohort study. Clin Implants Dent Res:471–477

  44. Deporter D, Watson P, Pharoah M, Levy D, Todescan R (1999) Five to six year results of a prospective clinical trial using the Endopore dental implant and a mandibular overdenture. Clin Oral Implants Res:95–102

  45. Deporter D, Watson P, Pharoah M, Todescan R, Tomlinson G (2002) Ten-year results of a prospective study using porous-surfaced dental implants and a mandibular overdenture. Clin Imp Dent Rel Res:183–189

  46. Rodrigo D, Almeida RF (2013) Retrospective multicenter study of 230 6mm SLA-surfaced implants with 1 to 6 year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Imp:1331–1337

  47. Perelli M, Abundo R, Corrente G, Saccone C (2011) Short (5 and 7 mm long) porous implant in the posterior atrophic mandible: a 5 year report of a prospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol:363–368

  48. Deporter DA, Kermalli J, Todescan R, Atenafu E (2012) Performance of sintered porous-surfaced, press-fit implants after 10 years of function in the partially edentulous posterior mandible. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent:563–570

  49. Malchiodi L, Ghensi P, Cucchi A, Pieroni S, Bertossi D (2015) Peri-implant conditions around porous-surfaced (SPS) implants. A 36-month prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res:212–219

  50. Neldam CA, Pinholt EM (2012) State of art of short dental implants: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Imp Dent and Rel Res:622–632

  51. Malchiodi L, Cucchi A, Ghensi P, Caricasulo R, Nocini PF (2016) The ‘Alternating Osteotome Technique’: a surgical approach for combined ridge expansion and sinus floor elevation. A multicentre prospective study with a three-year follow-up. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 30:762–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Spray JR, Black CG, Morris HF, Ochi S (2000) The influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering. Ann Periodontol:119–128

  53. Malchiodi L, Cucchi A, Ghensi P, Bondì V (2010) A case of rapidly progressive peri-implantitis around a short sintered porous-surfaced implant. J Indian Dent Assoc:33–35

  54. Pilliar RM, Deporter DA, Watson PA, Valiquette N (1991) Dental implant design—effect on bone remodelling. J Biomed Mater Res:467–483

  55. MacDonald K, Pharoah M, Todescan R, Deporter D (2009) Use of sintered porous surfaced dental implants to restore single teeth in the maxilla: a 7 to 9 year follow-up. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent:191–199

  56. Garaicoa-Pazmiño C, Suarez-Lopez F, Monje A, Catena A, Wang HL (2014) Influence of crown/implant ratio on marginal bone loss: a systematic review. J Periodontol:1214–1221

  57. Birdi H, Schulte J, Kovacs A, Weed M, Chuang SK (2010) Crown-to-implant ratios of short-length implants. J Oral Implantol:425–433

  58. Pilliar RM, Sagals G, Meguid S, Oyanarte R, Deporter DA (2006) Threaded versus porous-surfaced implants as anchorage units for orthodontic treatment: 3-D finite element analysis of peri-implant bone tissue stresses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants:879–889

  59. Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Quirynen M, Duyck J, Vansteenberghe D, Jacobs R (2002) Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part 2: a longitudinal radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res:390–395

  60. Guichet DL, Yoshinobu D, Caputo AA (2002) Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent:528–535

  61. Wang TM, Leu LJ, Wang J, Lin LD (2002) 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:231–237

  62. Rossi F, Ricci E, Marchetti C, Lang NP, Botticelli D (2010) Early loading of single crowns supported by 6-mm-long implants with a moderately rough surface: a prospective 2-year follow-up cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res:937–943

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Dentistry, Paediatrics and Gynaecology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Luciano Malchiodi, Giulia Ricciardi, Anna Salandini & Riccardo Caricasulo

  2. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Alessandro Cucchi

  3. Department CIBIO (Cellular, Computational and Integrative Biology), University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Paolo Ghensi

Authors
  1. Luciano Malchiodi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giulia Ricciardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Salandini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Riccardo Caricasulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alessandro Cucchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paolo Ghensi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luciano Malchiodi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malchiodi, L., Ricciardi, G., Salandini, A. et al. 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 Invest 24, 3213–3222 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03195-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03195-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation