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