Skip to main content
International Journal of Implant Dentistry
Download PDF

Extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) in atrophic and non-atrophic sites to support screw-retained full-arch restoration: a retrospective clinical study

International Journal of Implant Dentistry volume 9, Article number: 29 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Increasing scientific evidence support extending the application of short dental implants to non-atrophic dental arches. The purpose of this study has been the evaluation of extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) that were placed in atrophic and non-atrophic anatomical sites to support the same prosthesis.

Methods

For that, a retrospective study was conducted by including complete dentures that were solely supported by extra-short implants in the maxilla and/or the mandible. Clinical data about patients, implants, anatomy, and prosthesis were obtained. Statistical analysis was performed to assess implant- and prosthesis-survival, changes in the marginal bone level and prosthetic complications.

Results

A total of 87 implants in 15 screw-retained complete dentures were assessed. None of the prostheses nor the extra-short implant failed during the follow-up of 27.2 ± 15.4 months. The changes in the mesial and distal marginal bone level were + 0.15 ± 0.51 mm and + 0.11 ± 0.50 mm, respectively. Comparing the implants according to the availability of sufficient bone to place longer implants, indicated the absence of significant differences in the changes of the mesial marginal bone level. However, the changes in the distal marginal bone level showed a statistically significant difference in favor of implants that were placed in non-atrophic sites. Two events of screw loosening were reported that were resolved by retightening the screws.

Conclusions

Implant- and prosthesis-related outcomes support the use of extra-short implants in atrophic and non-atrophic site to support complete prosthesis.

Graphical Abstract

Background

Edentulism is a risk factor for the stability of the dental arches as it resulted in 3D atrophy of the alveolar process (horizontally and vertically) [1,2,3,4]. The consequences of alveolar bone atrophy include shorter face, rotation of the mandible in upward direction and more backward position of the tongue at rest [5]. These changes will not only affect oral functions (mastication and speech) and esthetics but will rather predispose to health-related problems due to obstructive sleep apnea, cognitive impairment, limited food choices and social interaction [5,6,7,8,9].

Alveolar bone atrophy after tooth loss is progressive, cumulative, and irreversible and patients with long-term edentulism would suffer from advanced stages of bone atrophy affecting the stability of mucosa-borne dental prosthesis [1,2,3,4]. Implant-supported prosthesis would be a valuable option to improve retention, stability, and function in these patients; however, the presence of alveolar bone atrophy would preclude the placement of dental implants unless a bone augmentation procedure is performed [1, 10]. Patient’s age and medical conditions may advise against performing advanced bone augmentations and would incline the balance toward short and minimally invasive implant surgery. In this context, short dental implants would be the clinician’s best ally.

From clinical point-of-view, the use of short implants has been associated with less biological and surgical complications, surgery time and treatment cost [11, 12]. They simplify the surgical intervention and provide a less invasive alternative to bone augmentation procedures (to place longer implants) [13,14,15]. Moreover, they show similar outcomes to longer implants in terms of implant survival and marginal bone stability [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. From technological point of view, the advancement in the macro- and micro-design of the dental implants and the prosthetic components have shifted the definition of the short dental implant toward lesser values and the clinical evidence is supporting this change [16,17,18, 23, 24]. Careful handling of tissues during surgery through the refinement of the surgical techniques has been also an important factor [25, 26]. Nowadays, implant dentistry is 3D-centric in all the phases of treatment (diagnosis, planning and execution). The net outcome of all these advancements is a wider indication of short dental implants to more reduced residual alveolar bone heights [13, 15, 27,28,29].

The increasing supporting evidence about short dental implants is a good reason not to limit their use to those cases where there is no sufficient bone to place longer implants [18]. There is a clinical claim to compare short and longer implants under similar conditions [30]. Thus, testing short implants in an alveolar ridge where longer implants could be placed. Indeed, several clinical trials have compared the short and long implants in this context [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Similar outcomes have been reported for short and long implants in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss. However, additional studies are needed to assess the predictability of using short implants in different scenarios of alveolar bone height [18]. Thus, completely edentulous mandible/maxilla could be an interesting model as the residual alveolar bone height would vary from one anatomical site to another.

Extra-short dental implants (≤ 6.5 mm) [41, 42] have a lower osteointegration surface than long implants and several clinical reports have assessed them [43, 44]. On the short- and medium-term follow-up, no statistically significant differences have been observed between extra-short and longer implants in implant survival or marginal bone-level changes [43, 44].

Thus, the purpose of this retrospective study is to assess extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) [41, 42] that were placed in atrophic and non-atrophic anatomical sites to support full-arch restoration.

Methods

This article was written following Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studied in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [45]. The research has been conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and its amendment. It was approved by the ethical committee of Araba University Hospital (FIBEA-02-ER/22/Extracortos).

Pseudonymized electronic database was consulted to retrieve the records of patients with the following characteristics: extra-short implants supporting a fixed complete denture, the use of transepithelial abutment, patients 18 years old or more and a radiographic follow-up of a minimum of 12 months.

Surgical intervention

The extra-short implants (length ≤ 6.5 mm) were placed following the manufacturer's instructions (UnicCa® implants, BTI Biotechnology Institute, Vitoria, Spain). The bone at the implant site was drilled following the low-speed drilling procedure. The initial drill was operating at 800–1000 rpm with irrigation and the diameter drills were working at low speed (≤ 150 rpm) without irrigation [46]. Before implant insertion, liquid plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) was placed in the neo-alveolus and the implants were inserted with the aid of a surgical motor at 25 Ncm. The implants were finally seated with a calibrated torque wrench at the level of alveolar bone crest. The PRGF was prepared using an available commercial kit (KMU 15, BTI Biotechnology Institute, Vitoria, Spain) [47, 48].

Implant loading and prosthetic rehabilitation

The implant loading protocol was decided taking into considerations the insertion torque and the bone type. As such, immediate implant loading was performed for those implants that were inserted at an insertion torque ≥ 25 Ncm and in a bone with good quality.

For loading, definitive transepithelial abutment (Multi-Im®) was connected to the implant following the one abutment one time principle. The impression making and the prosthetic rehabilitation were thus performed at the gingival level to deliver a screw-retained complete prosthesis. For the provisional prosthesis, an articulated titanium bar system (BTI Biotechnology, Vitoria, Spain) veneered with resin material was used. The definitive prosthesis was made from a metallic framework that was computer-designed and computer-manufactured. The structure was then ceramic-veneered to deliver the definitive screw-retained prosthesis at mutually protected occlusion.

Data extraction

The study database was generated by incorporating the following variables:

Principal variable: Implant survival rate.

Secondary variables: Patients’ age and sex, medical history, implant length and diameter, anatomical site, bone type and density at the implant site, residual bone higher (at implant site), insertion torque, bone augmentation surgery, date of implant insertion, date of implant loading, length of the transepithelial abutment, crown-to-implant ratio, type of the antagonist, marginal bone level at loading (mesial and distal), date of the last available radiograph, marginal bone level at the last available radiograph (mesial and distal), technical complications and date of the last visit.

On pre-surgical cone-beam CT scan, the residual alveolar bone height (the vertical distant from the crest to the maxillary sinus, the nasal cavity or the mandibular canal) and the bone density were measured with the help of a software (BTI Scan IV®).

Panoramic radiograph was made by positioning the patients on the chin resting device and orienting the Frankfurt plane to be parallel to the ground. The radiographs at implant loading and the last available one were assessed to determine the marginal bone level. For that, the radiograph was visualized on a dental software (Sidexis; Dentsply Sirona; York, US) where the measurements were calibrated by the known implant length (Fig. 1). The vertical distance between the implant platform and the first coronal bone-to-implant contact was measured both mesially and distally. The measurements had a negative sign if the bone level was below the implant platform and positive sign if it was above the implant platform. The differences in the bone marginal level between the two radiographs determine the change in the bone marginal level. Furthermore, to calculate the crown-to-implant ratio, the crown length was divided by the sum of the lengths of the implant and the transepithelial abutment.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Bone-level measurements. Distances between the IP (implant platform) and the first bone implant contact coronally (BLm, bone level mesial; BLd, bone level distal) were measured and calibrated based on the known lL (implant length). AH (abutment height)

Full size image

Statistical analysis

All the statistical analysis was performed in a software package (IBM SPSS Statistic, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was set at p value < 0.05. The principal factor was the sufficiency of alveolar bone height to place longer implants than 6.5 mm. Descriptive analysis was performed by calculating the frequency for categorical variables and the mean and standard deviation for the continuous variables. The Shapiro–Wilk test indicated the distribution type (normal or not). Accordingly, the statistical testing of the significant of the differences was either tested by the Mann–Whitney test (bone density, insertion torque, follow-up time and crown-to-implant ratio) or Student’s test (changes in the marginal bone level). For categorical variables, this was done by the Chi-square test.

Results

Patients’ characteristics

The analysis was performed in 14 patients (11 women and 3 men) who had a mean age of 70 years (range: 58 to 85 years). Three patients had arterial hypertension, one patient had a pacemaker, and another patient was an active smoker.

Implants’ characteristics

The study included 15 complete dentures in the mandible and the maxilla that were supported by 87 extra-short implants (37 in the maxilla and 50 in the mandible). Table 1 shows the distribution of the implants’ diameter and length. The 74.7% of the extra-short implants were also narrow implants (diameter ≤ 3.5 mm).

Table 1 Distribution of the length and the diameter of the dental implants in the maxilla and the mandible
Full size table

The upper dentures were supported by 6 (1 prosthesis), 7 (1 prosthesis) and 8 (3 prostheses) implants. All of them were bilaterally extended to the second molar area. The distribution of the dental implants that were supporting these prostheses is shown in Table 2. All the prostheses had implants that were placed at teeth #11, #17 and #27.

Table 2 The distribution of the dental implants in the upper arch for each complete prosthesis
Full size table

Figure 2 shows that the extra-short implants in the maxilla were placed at sites with and without sufficient height to place longer implants. Longer implants were possible to be placed in 40% of the implant’s sites. Three 5.5 mm long implants were placed simultaneously to transcrestal sinus lift (residual bone height of 3.5, 4.7 and 5.1 mm) and another implant simultaneously to nasal floor elevation (residual bone height of 4.1 mm). Two 6.5-mm-long implants were placed simultaneously to transcrestal sinus lift (residual bone height of 4.7 mm) and nasal floor elevation (residual bone height of 4.9 mm).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The length of the extra-short implants that were placed at maxillary sites with and without sufficient height to place longer implants

Full size image

The lower dentures were supported by 4 (5 prostheses), 5 (1 prosthesis), 6 (3 prostheses) and 7 (1 prosthesis) implants. Seven prostheses were extended to the premolar area and another 3 to the molar area. The distribution of the implants in the lower arch is shown in Table 3. The extra-short implants were distributed evenly within the arch in 6 prostheses. Figure 3 shows that 94% of the residual alveolar heights were sufficient to place longer implants than 6.5-mm-long implants.

Table 3 The distribution of the dental implants in the lower arch for each complete prosthesis
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

The length of the extra-short implants that were placed at mandibular sites with and without sufficient height to place longer implants

Full size image

Atrophied and non-atrophic site: surgical and performance outcomes

Data stratification by the presence or absence of sufficient bone height to place longer implants is shown in Table 4. The bone density was significantly higher at the sites with sufficient height to place longer implants. This had an impact on the insertion torque that scored higher values at these sites. Immediate implant loading was performed more frequently in the sites with sufficient bone height (47 out of 63 implants) in comparison with sites of insufficient height (4 out of 24 implants) to place longer implants. These differences were statistically significant (Chi-square test, p-value: 0.000).

Table 4 Effect of the availability of sufficient bone height to place longer implants on bone density, insertion torque, follow-up time and changes in the marginal bone level and the crown-to-implant ratio
Full size table

None of the implants failed during the follow-up of 27.2 ± 15.4 months. Figures 4 and 5 show clinical cases of completely edentulous arch that were treated by the insertion of extra-short implants. The changes in the mesial and distal marginal bone level were + 0.15 ± 0.51 mm and + 0.11 ± 0.50 mm, respectively. There were no significant differences in the follow-up time and the mesial marginal bone-level changes regarding the availability of sufficient bone to place longer implants (Table 4). However, the changes in the distal marginal bone level showed a statistically significant difference.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Clinical case. Full-arch mandibular rehabilitation on 6 narrow (≤ 3.5 mm) extra-short (≤ 6.5 mm) implants. A Initial situation. Previous fixed full-arch lower maxillary implant rehabilitation on 4 standard-length implants failure. B Provisional prosthesis screw-retained on intermediate abutments (transmucosal abutments), reinforced with metal bars and resin veneered. C Definitive prosthesis screw-retained on intermediate abutments. CAD-CAM metal suprastructure split in three sections. Implant diameter and length (mm): #4.7 (3.5 × 5.5), #4.5 (3.5 × 5.5), #4.3 (3 × 6.5), #3.2 (3 × 6.5), #3.4 (3 × 6.5), #3.6 (3.3 × 5.5)

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Clinical case. Full-arch maxilla rehabilitation on 8 extra-short (≤ 6.5 mm) implants. A Clinical picture showing removal complete denture in the maxilla. B Extra-oral radiograph showing the initial situation of the completely edentulous maxilla. C Placement of 8 dental implants in the maxilla. Implant diameter and length (mm): #1.1 (3.75 × 5.5), #1.3 (3.3 × 5.5), #1.4 (3 × 5.5), #1.7 (3 × 6.5), #2.1 (3.5 × 5.5), #2.3 (4 × 6.5), #2.4 (3 × 5.5) and #2.7 (3.5 × 5.5). D Provisional prosthesis screw-retained on intermediate abutments, reinforced with metal bars and resin veneered. E Clinical picture of the definitive prosthesis screw-retained on intermediate abutments. F Follow-up after 31 months of implant insertion

Full size image

Table 5 shows length of the transepithelial abutments in relation to the implant length. The most frequent lengths of this prosthetic component were between 2.5 and 4.0 mm. None of the prostheses failed and only 2 showed technical complications. These were screw loosening in two lower dentures that occurred once and were resolved by screw retightening.

Table 5 The length of transepithelial abutments in relation to the length of the implant
Full size table

Discussion

There is an interest and a need to assess the use of short implants not only in atrophic alveolar process, but also in those where sufficient bone height is available to place longer implants. This retrospective study is reporting on the use of extra-short implants in these two situations. Fifteen screw-retained fixed complete prostheses have been supported by 87 extra-short implants (length ≤ 6.5 mm). Sixty-three implants have been placed at sites where longer implants could be placed. Promising outcomes (implant survival, marginal bone stability and technical complications) could be observed.

Regarding implant survival, several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been conducted to compare short implants and long implants when sufficient bone height has been available to place long implants [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. The short implant has been 4 to 6 mm in length and the comparator implant has lengths between 8.5 mm and 11 mm. There have been no significant differences between the two implant types in the survival rate [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40, 49]. The follow-up time is an important factor to consider as the 5-year survival rate of short implants has been lower than longer implants [50]. Fort that, a recent meta-analysis has pooled the data of implant survival in different follow-up times [18]. The pooled risk ratios of implant survival have been 0.98 (95%CI: 0.96 to 1.00), 0.98 (95%CI: 0.95 to 1.02) and 0.98 (95%CI: 0.94 to 1.01) at 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up [18]. These data agree with the outcomes of this study by showing high implant survival rate.

The high implant survival rate are related to the use of dental implants with roughened surface and threaded design that would reduce the risk of osseointegration failure [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Rocci et al. have reported in a RCT better outcomes for rough-surface implants in comparison to machined-surface implants after 9 years of follow-up [51]. Moreover, short implants with machined surface haven been associated with higher risk of failure even at short follow-up time (3 years) [52, 53]. Primary implant stability is a mechanical outcome that represents the quality of implant fixation in the alveolar bone [46]. It is the interaction between implant design, bone quality and drilling protocol. Achieving a good primary stability is a common clinical parameter to decide on immediate/early loading protocol. For example, insertion torques higher than 35 Ncm or between 20 and 45 Ncm have been recommended to perform immediate loading [54, 55]. Moreover, all these variables (rough surface, good primary stability and threaded implant) would reduce the risk of micromovement and thus osseointegration failure [46, 56,57,58]. Indeed, several RCTs have compared short and long implants placed in non-atrophic alveolar bone under immediate/early loading protocols at follow-up times of 1 [31, 35, 49], 3 [40], 5 [32, 36,37,38], and 10 years [39]. Both implant types have generally shown high survival rate with no statistically significant differences. Most of the comparisons that have been performed in alveolar ridge with sufficient bone height to host long implants have been performed in the context of multi-unit prosthesis [31, 32, 34,35,36,37, 39, 40]. Splinting dental implants, as in this study, have several advantages from biomechanical point of view: reduction of lateral forces, enhanced distribution of the stress and lowering the stress received by the implant [59,60,61]. Moreover, the delivery of the prosthesis with a mutually protected occlusion would decrease the stress on the implants [62]. The number and the distribution of the dental implants have been planned to avoid distal cantilever extension. This type of design would provide better prosthesis support, lower stress (implant, abutment and bone) and stress distribution over greater area [63, 64]. All these measures have together resulted in reducing the risk of late implant failure although 74.7% of the extra-short implants have been also narrow implants (diameter ≤ 3.5 mm). Two other clinical studies have shown a high survival rate (93.4% and 100%) and good marginal bone stability in short-term follow-up [65, 66]. However, more studies are warranted to critically assess the clinical performance of short and narrow dental implants.

In this study the changes in the marginal bone level have been + 0.15 and + 0.11 on the mesial and distal sides, respectively. Limited marginal bone loss (mean < 0.5 mm) has been reported for short implants that have been placed in non-atrophic alveolar bone [36, 38, 49]. The meta-analysis by Guida et al. has reported a pooled mean difference in marginal bone-level changes for short and long implants placed in non-atrophic bone of 0.11 (95%CI: − 0.10 to 0.31), − 0.09 (95%CI: − 0.24 to 0.05) and 0.19 (− 0.06 to 0.45) at 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up [18].

All the implants in this study have been restored by first connecting a definitive transepithelial abutment to the implant and second connecting the prosthesis to the abutment. For that, the stability of the marginal bone level could be related to the effect of one-abutment one time and tissue-level restoration [67, 68]. Moreover, the length of the transepithelial abutments has been ≥ 2 mm for most of the implants (95.4%). It has been reported that abutment height of 2 mm has been associated with minimal marginal bone loss [69]. These abutments have been prefabricated and would have positively affect the sealing quality at the implant–abutment interface against microorganism accumulation and inflammation [70]. Moreover, it will affect the stress transmitted to the bone and avoid excessive stress that would compromise bone stability [71, 72]. The deliver of screw-retained restoration has avoided the risk of residual cement in the soft tissue.

The crown-to-implant ratio is another variable that is increased when extra-short implants are placed (a mean of 2.79 in this study), however it has not influenced the clinical outcomes [73]. This is in agreement with a meta-analysis of single-tooth implants (more vulnerable than splinted implants) which concluded that increased crown-to-implant ratio has not incremented the biological or the technical complications [74]. All the complete prostheses, in this study, have survived and only 2 screw loosening events have been observed. These events could be related to inappropriate screw tightening by applying lower torque than the torque recommended by the manufacturer. As once retightened, no more events have been observed [75, 76].

This study is limited by its design (retrospective) and the absence of a control group (long implants). However, it has provided homogenous scenario to assess the use of extra-short implants in atrophic and non-atrophic alveolar bone sites. Moreover, all the implants have been loaded by the same type of the prosthesis and the same method of fabrication. A retrospective study would assess the medical devise in a real-world environment, reflecting the clinical practice. In this study, 87 extra-short implants have been assessed. The trial sequential analysis has indicated the need for more clinical studies that compared short and long implants in non-atrophic alveolar bone [18]. The meta-analysis has a total size of 916 implants and the required information size has been 1804 implants. The included clinical trials have a variable sample size of the short implants group, it has a wide range between 21 and 121 implants [18]. Longer follow-up time is required to assess the medium and long-term outcomes of short dental implants in non-atrophic alveolar sites.

Conclusions

The placement of extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm) in atrophic and non-atrophic anatomical sites has resulted in similar clinical outcomes (high implant survival and marginal bone stability). The low incidence of complications and the high survival rate of the prosthesis (screw-retained fixed prosthesis) support this extended use of extra-short implants. More clinical studies are needed to offer a reliable clinical indication of short implants in non-atrophic alveolar bone.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Orive G. Novel technique for the treatment of the severely atrophied posterior mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:1338–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Atwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges: a major oral disease entity. J Prosthet Dent. 1971;26:266–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reich KM, Huber CD, Lippnig WR, Ulm C, Watzek G, Tangl S. Atrophy of the residual alveolar ridge following tooth loss in an historical population. Oral Dis. 2011;17:33–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kingsmill VJ. Post-extraction remodeling of the adult mandible. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1999;10:384–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sanders AE, Akinkugbe AA, Slade GD, Essick GK. Tooth loss and obstructive sleep apnea signs and symptoms in the US population. Sleep Breath. 2016;20:1095.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Anitua E, Duran-Cantolla J, Almeida GZ, Alkhraisat MH. Minimizing the mandibular advancement in an oral appliance for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Med. 2017;34:226–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Duran-Cantolla J, Alkhraisat MH, Martinez-Null C, Aguirre JJ, Guinea ER, Anitua E. Frequency of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in dental patients with tooth wear. J Clin Sleep Med. 2015;11:445–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Duran-Cantolla J, Crovetto-Martinez R, Alkhraisat MH, Crovetto M, Municio A, Kutz R, et al. Efficacy of mandibular advancement device in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a randomized controlled crossover clinical trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015;20:e605–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ohkubo C, Morokuma M, Yoneyama Y, Matsuda R, Lee JS. Interactions between occlusion and human brain function activities. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40:119–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Alkhraisat MH, Marino FT, Retama JR, Jerez LB, Lopez-Cabarcos E. Beta-tricalcium phosphate release from brushite cement surface. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;84:710–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mendes PA, Silva VEA, Viegasda Costa D, Moraisde Pinho M, Chambrone L, Zenobio EG. Effectiveness of extra-short (< 6 mm) implants compared to standard-length implants associated with bone graft: systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023;38:29–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grunau O, Terheyden H. Lateral augmentation of the sinus floor followed by regular implants versus short implants in the vertically deficient posterior maxilla: a systematic review and timewise meta-analysis of randomized studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;52:813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Anitua E, Flores J, Alkhraisat MH. Transcrestal sinus floor augmentation by sequential drilling and the use of plasma rich in growth factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:e167–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anitua E, Flores J, Alkhraisat MH. Transcrestal sinus lift using platelet concentrates in association to short implant placement: a retrospective study of augmented bone height remodeling. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:993–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anitua E, Murias-Freijo A, Alkhraisat MH, Orive G. Implant-guided vertical bone augmentation around extra-short implants for the management of severe bone atrophy. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41:563–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cruz RS, Lemos CAA, Batista VES, Oliveira H, Gomes JML, Pellizzer EP, et al. Short implants versus longer implants with maxillary sinus lift. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32:e86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. de Dias FJN, Pecorari VGA, Martins CB, Del Fabbro M, Casati MZ. Short implants versus bone augmentation in combination with standard-length implants in posterior atrophic partially edentulous mandibles: systematic review and meta-analysis with the Bayesian approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48:90–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guida L, Bressan E, Cecoro G, Volpe AD, Del Fabbro M, Annunziata M. Short versus longer implants in sites without the need for bone augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Materials (Basel). 2022;15:3138.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. 15-year follow-up of short dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient: Mandible Vs maxilla. Ann Anat. 2019;222:88–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lorenz J, Blume M, Korzinskas T, Ghanaati S, Sader RA. Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study. Int J Implant Dent. 2019;5:3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Nielsen HB, Schou S, Bruun NH, Starch-Jensen T. Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7:66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin ZZ, Jiao YQ, Ye ZY, Wang GG, Ding X. The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7:41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Anitua E, Prado R, Orive G, Tejero R. Effects of calcium-modified titanium implant surfaces on platelet activation, clot formation, and osseointegration. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103:969–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Araki H, Nakano T, Ono S, Yatani H. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of extra short implants focusing on implant designs and materials. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Severi M, Trombelli L, Heitz-Mayfield L, Farina R, Simonelli A. Minimal invasiveness in lateral bone augmentation with simultaneous implant placement: a systematic review. Periodontol. 2000;2023(91):113–25.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Anitua E, Fernandez-de-Retana S, Alkhraisat MH. Platelet rich plasma in oral and maxillofacial surgery from the perspective of composition. Platelets. 2021;32:174–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nedir R, Nurdin N, Khoury P, Bischof M. Short implants placed with or without grafting in atrophic sinuses: the 3-year results of a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:10–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Orive G. Long-term outcome of transosteotomy bone augmentation of the inferior border of the severely resorbed mandible. Implant Dent. 2015;24:236–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nedir R, Nurdin N, Vazquez L, Abi Najm S, Bischof M. Osteotome sinus floor elevation without grafting: a 10-year prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:609–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jung RE, Al-Nawas B, Araujo M, Avila-Ortiz G, Barter S, Brodala N, et al. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: the influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):69–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cannizzaro G, Felice P, Buti J, Leone M, Ferri V, Esposito M. Immediate loading of fixed cross-arch prostheses supported by flapless-placed supershort or long implants: 1-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015;8:27–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cannizzaro G, Felice P, Ippolito DR, Velasco-Ortega E, Esposito M. Immediate loading of fixed cross-arch prostheses supported by flapless-placed 5 mm or 11.5 mm long implants: 5-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11:295–306.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Felice P, Checchi L, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Sammartino G, Masi I, et al. Posterior jaws rehabilitated with partial prostheses supported by 4.0 x 4.0 mm or by longer implants: one-year post-loading results from a multicenter randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9:35–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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;31:64–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gulje F, Abrahamsson I, Chen S, Stanford C, Zadeh H, Palmer R. Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:1325–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gulje FL, Meijer HJA, Abrahamsson I, Barwacz CA, Chen S, Palmer PJ, et al. Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32:15–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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 Implantol. 2014;7:371–81.

    PubMed  Google 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;27:458–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Storelli S, Abba A, Scanferla M, Botticelli D, Romeo E. 6 mm vs 10 mm-long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior jaws: a 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11:283–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zadeh HH, Gulje F, Palmer PJ, Abrahamsson I, Chen S, Mahallati R, et al. Marginal bone level and survival of short and standard-length implants after 3 years: an open multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:894–906.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Husler J, Hammerle 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):154–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yu X, Xu R, Zhang Z, Yang Y, Deng F. A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (</= 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (>/= 8 mm) with bone augmentation. Sci Rep. 2021;11:8152.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Ravida A, Wang IC, Barootchi S, Askar H, Tavelli L, Gargallo-Albiol J, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing clinical and patient-reported outcomes between extra-short (</=6 mm) and longer (>/=10 mm) implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46:118–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Papaspyridakos P, De Souza A, Vazouras K, Gholami H, Pagni S, Weber HP. Survival rates of short dental implants (</=6 mm) compared with implants longer than 6 mm in posterior jaw areas: a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):8–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:573–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Pinas L, Orive G. Efficacy of biologically guided implant site preparation to obtain adequate primary implant stability. Ann Anat. 2015;199:9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Anitua E. Plasma rich in growth factors: preliminary results of use in the preparation of future sites for implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:529–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Anitua E, Andia I, Ardanza B, Nurden P, Nurden AT. Autologous platelets as a source of proteins for healing and tissue regeneration. Thromb Haemost. 2004;91:4–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Weerapong K, Sirimongkolwattana S, Sastraruji T, Khongkhunthian P. Comparative study of immediate loading on short dental implants and conventional dental implants in the posterior mandible: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:141–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Naenni N, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Attin T, Wiedemeier DB, Sapata V, et al. Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res. 2018;97:887–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rocci A, Rocci M, Rocci C, Scoccia A, Gargari M, Martignoni M, et al. Immediate loading of Branemark system TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible, part II: a randomized open-ended 9-year follow-up clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:891–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Friberg B, Jemt T, Lekholm U. Early failures in 4641 consecutively placed Branemark dental implants: a study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;6:142–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. van Steenberghe D. Outcomes and their measurement in clinical trials of endosseous oral implants. Ann Periodontol. 1997;2:291–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Esposito M, Ardebili Y, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;7:CD003815.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schrott A, Riggi-Heiniger M, Maruo K, Gallucci GO. Implant loading protocols for partially edentulous patients with extended edentulous sites–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):239–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14:251–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1991;25:889–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B, Krol JJ. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6:24–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tarnow DP, Emtiaz S, Classi A. Immediate loading of threaded implants at stage 1 surgery in edentulous arches: ten consecutive case reports with 1- to 5-year data. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:319–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Anitua E, Tapia R, Luzuriaga F, Orive G. Influence of implant length, diameter, and geometry on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010;30:89–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Pierrisnard L, Renouard F, Renault P, Barquins M. Influence of implant length and bicortical anchorage on implant stress distribution. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5:254–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Misch CE, Steignga J, Barboza E, Misch-Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C. Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study. J Periodontol. 2006;77:1340–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bhering CL, Mesquita MF, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, Consani RL, Barao VA. Comparison between all-on-four and all-on-six treatment concepts and framework material on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: a prototyping guided 3D-FEA study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016;69:715–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Anitua E, Larrazabal Saez de Ibarra N, Saracho Rotaeche L. Implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous mandible: biomechanical analysis of different implant configurations via finite element analysis. Dent J (Basel). 2022;11:4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Malo PS, de Araujo 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;59:357–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Antiua E, Escuer V, Alkhraisat MH. Short narrow dental implants versus long narrow dental implants in fixed prostheses: a prospective clinical study. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10:39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Koutouzis T, Gholami F, Reynolds J, Lundgren T, Kotsakis GA. Abutment disconnection/reconnection affects peri-implant marginal bone levels: a meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:575–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hernandez-Marcos G, Hernandez-Herrera M, Anitua E. Marginal bone loss around short dental implants restored at implant level and with transmucosal abutment: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33:1362–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Spinato S, Galindo-Moreno P, Bernardello F, Zaffe D. Minimum abutment height to eliminate bone loss: influence of implant neck design and platform switching. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;33:405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Sumi T, Braian M, Shimada A, Shibata N, Takeshita K, Vandeweghe S, et al. Characteristics of implant-CAD/CAM abutment connections of two different internal connection systems. J Oral Rehabil. 2012;39:391–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Isa ZM, Hobkirk JA. The effects of superstructure fit and loading on individual implant units: Part 2. The effects of loading a superstructure with varying degrees of fit. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 1996;4:11–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Mihalko WM, May TC, Kay JF, Krause WR. Finite element analysis of interface geometry effects on the crestal bone surrounding a dental implant. Implant Dent. 1992;1:212–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Anitua E, Pinas 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;17:102–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Meijer HJA, Boven C, Delli K, Raghoebar GM. Is there an effect of crown-to-implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 18):243–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Al-Otaibi HN, Almutairi A, Alfarraj J, Algesadi W. The effect of torque application technique on screw preload of implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;32:259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Greer AC, Hoyle PJ, Vere JW, Wragg PF. Mechanical complications associated with angled screw channel restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:258–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice in Oral Implantology, Clínica Eduardo Anitua Foundation, C/ Jose Maria Cagigal 19, 01007, Vitoria, Spain

    Eduardo Anitua

  2. University Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Oral Implantology, UIRMI (UPV/EHU-Fundación Eduardo Anitua), Vitoria, Spain

    Eduardo Anitua, Asier Eguia & Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat

  3. BTI Biotechnology Institute, Vitoria, Spain

    Eduardo Anitua & Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat

  4. University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Leioa (Bizkaia), Spain

    Asier Eguia

Authors
  1. Eduardo Anitua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asier Eguia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and have given final approval of the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Anitua.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the ethical committee of the University Hospital of Araba (FIBEA-02-ER/22/Extracortos).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

EA is the Scientific Director of BTI Biotechnology Institute, a dental implant company that investigates in the fields of oral implantology and PRGF-Endoret technology, and the Head of Eduardo Anitua Foundation. AE is a researcher at the Eduardo Anitua Foundation. MHA is a researcher at BTI Biotechnology Institute.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anitua, E., Eguia, A. & Alkhraisat, M.H. Extra-short implants (≤ 6.5 mm in length) in atrophic and non-atrophic sites to support screw-retained full-arch restoration: a retrospective clinical study. Int J Implant Dent 9, 29 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00499-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00499-7

Keywords