Skip to main content

Table 4 Clinical characteristics of the study cohort

From: Novel expandable short dental implants in situations with reduced vertical bone height—technical note and first results

Patient

Sex

Age (years)

Implant position (FDI)

Indication categorya

Bone quality

Prosthetic treatment

Follow-up (months)

Implant failure

1. T. I.

F

80

Maxilla 15, 13, 11, 21, 25 (Σ = 5)

IIa

D4

Telescope

37

n = 1c

2. G. S.

F

65

Mandible 34, 32, 42, 44 (Σ = 4)

IIIb

D1

Ball attachment

34

None

3. S. Sa.

F

64

Maxilla 14, 12, 22, 24 (Σ = 4)

IIIab

D4

Jaw bar

34

None

4. Th. F.

M

76

Mandible 35, 36, 37 (Σ = 3)

IIb

D1

Bridge

33

None

5. A. M.

F

44

Maxilla 16, 15, 14 (Σ = 3)

IIa

D3

Bridge

32

None

6. S. M.

M

53

Maxilla 16, 14, 12 (Σ = 3)

IIa

D3

Ball attachment

32

n = 1d

7. K. S.

F

52

Mandible 35, 36, 37 (Σ = 3)

IIb

D2

Bridge

29

None

8. R. C.

F

59

Mandible 35, 36 (Σ = 2)

IIb

D2

Bridge

24

None

9. W. K.

F

72

Mandible 47, 45, 43 (Σ = 3)

IIb

D2

Bridge

23

None

  1. FDI implant position according to the World Dental Federation
  2. aIndication categories (IIa, IIb, IIIa, IIIb) with regard to the amount of implants [35]
  3. bModified due to local conditions
  4. cImplant loss before loading
  5. dImplant loss after loading