(some pictures?) (Try using some simple animations when needed (nothing fancy), like appearance of each line while you talk)
What are the types of studies that you mention (?) very important Elaborate on what do you mean by „surviva rate “ l and „failure rate “ Are these rates on an „implant level “ or on a „patient level “ ?? very important (you might even re-look most of your information (!) (some pictures?)
What type of failure did the authors talk about in this article (?)
Wishing you all the best !!
ITICongress Middle EastAbu DhabiDecember 7 – 82012Dr. Mohammed AlshehriRiyadh, Saudi Arabia
Short implant vs sinus elevationOutline • Situations that limit placement of long implants. • Short implants as an alternative. • Definition of short implants according to the literatures. • The available evidence on short dental implants. • Contributing factors affecting success of short implant.
Situations that limit placement of long implants • Height of existing available bone I. Maxillary sinus II. Mandibular canal
Situations that limit placement of long implants • history of Chronic sinusitis. • Allergic sinusitis. • Cystic fibrosis. • Pathological lesions. • Patients acceptance for adjunctive surgical procedures to place longer implant.
Short implants as an alternativeShort Implant • Increases patient’s acceptability • Less surgical procedures • Lower costs • Fewer complications • Quicker rehabilitation time
Definition of short implants according to the literaturesImplant length • A dental implant with length of 7 mm or less. (Friberg et al. 2000) • Any implant under 10 mm in length referred to as a ‘‘short’’ implant > (Griffin TJ, Cheung WS. 2004) • A device with an intra-bony length of 8 mm or less. (Renouard and Nisand 2006)
Definition of short implants according to the literaturesImplant width • Wide implant defined as a fixture with 4.5 mm or more in diameter, and a ‘narrow’ implant as one in which this was less than 3.5 mm in diameter (Renouard and Nisand 2006)
The available evidence on short dental implantsShort implant versus long Implant orShort implants versus adjunctive surgical procedures that required to place a longer implant • Survival rates of implants placed in augmented sites • 92.1% to 100% for GBR • 76% to 100% for onlay bone grafts over 1–7 years (Rocchietta et al. 2008) a systematic review
The available evidence on short dental implants •Cumulative Survival Rate of implants placed in the augmented maxillary sinus was 95% (follow-up, 6-144 months); and that in the guided bone regeneration technique protocols ranged from 92% to 100% (follow-up, 6-133 months) (Chiapasco et al. 2009) a systematic review. •They concluded that priority should be given to simpler approaches.
The available evidence on short dental implantsShort implant - early research • Review of short implants in clinical studies between 1981 and 1997 - a higher failure rate and implant loss with short implants than with long implants (Goodacre et al. 1999) • Higher failure rate with poor bone quality and short implant placement in the atrophic maxilla or following bone-grafting procedures (Sennerby et al. 1998)
The available evidence on short dental implants • 91.4% cumulative survival rate for 8- mm-long implants with a plasma-sprayed surface reported by (Buser et al.1997) • Friberg et al. also found a high success rate for short implants, with a 95.5% five-year survival rate
The available evidence on short dental implantsShort implants – recent dataTelleman et al. (2011) A systematic review of the prognosis of short (10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient • A growing evidence that short implants can be placed successfully in the partially edentulous patients • Increasing survival rate per implant length. • short dental implants in the mandible has a better prognosis over maxilla. • The results of studies excluding smokers revealed higher implant survival rates
The available evidence on short dental implantsShort implants – recent dataJokstad (2011) The evidence for endorsing the use of short dental implants • There is growing evidence that placement of short (<10mm) implants can be successful in the partially edentulous patient. Beyond the first years following implant placement the current scientific data are insufficient for providing clinical guidance.
The available evidence on short dental implantsShort implants – recent dataMonje et al. (2012) Are Short Dental Implants (<10mm) Effective? A Meta-Analysis on Prospective Clinical Trials • Short dental implants had an estimated survival rate of 88.1% at 168 months while standard dental implants had a similar estimated survival rate of 86.7%. • The peak failure rate of short dental implants was found to occur between 4-6 years of function compared to 6-8 years for standard implants. • The smoking double the failure. • in the long-term, implants less than 10 mm were as predictable as longer implants.
The available evidence on short dental implantsShort implants – recent dataEsposito et al. (2012) Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm-long, 4 mm-wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. • Short-term data (5 months after loading) indicate that 6 mm-long implants with a conventional diameter of 4 mm achieved similar result to longer implants placed in augmented bone. • Short implants might be a preferable choice to bone augmentation, since the treatment is faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity. • 5- to 10-year post-loading data are necessary before making reliable recommendations.
The available evidence on short dental implants
The available evidence on short dental implants • Multicenter trial (six study centers) • 95 subjects were included. • Subjects were randomly allocated to receiving implants with lengths of either 6 or 11 mm both with a diameter of 4 mm (OsseoSpeedTM 4.0 S; Astra) • In all cases • sufficient bone height for placement of an implant of at least 11 mm in length. • 2 or 3 implants were placed per subject using one-stage surgery. • They were restored with a screw-retained splinted fixed prosthesis.
The available evidence on short dental implants • Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed preoperatively, post surgery, at loading, and 6 and 12 months after prosthesis placement. • A total of 208 implants were inserted in 49 subjects receiving 6-mm implants and in 46 subjects receiving 11 mm implants • Two 6-mm implants failed before loading and one 6 and 11 mm implants failed before 1-year evaluation. • From loading to the 12 months’ follow-up, a mean marginal bone gain of 0.06 mm in the 6 mm group and 0.02 mm in the 11 mm group was found (P = 0.478). • Soft tissue behavior was equal in both groups
The available evidence on short dental implants•Clinical and One-year data indicate that treatment with the 6 mm implants is asreliable as treatment with the 11 mm implants.•future randomized controlled clinical trials required to validate predictability of thefindings.
The available evidence on short dental implantsClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2012
The available evidence on short dental implants • Implant failures, complications, operation time, postoperative pain and swelling, soft tissue parameters, marginal bone levels, and implant stability (ISQ) values. Patients were followed for 3 years after loading.
The available evidence on short dental implantsResult Outcome measures Augmented group Short Implants group Implant failures Three early implant failures one late failureSurgical complications 8 (5 membrane perforations, 1 (membrane perforation) 2 bleedings, 1 sinusitis) Biological 1 (peri-implantitis) 2 (1 peri-implantitis, 1 complications peri-implant mucositis) Prosthetic 3 (1 abutment loosening, 2 3 (1 abutment loosening, 1 complications ceramic fractures) decementation, 1 ceramic fracture)
The available evidence on short dental implantsResult Outcome measures Augmented group Short Implants group Operation time 60 min 30 min postoperative pain Increased postoperative pain and Three times less pain and swelling and swelling swelling during the first postoperative week Marginal bone loss difference not statistically significant difference not statistically significant Implant stability ISQ difference not statistically significant difference not statistically significant
The available evidence on short dental implantsCont.• Both treatment approaches achieved successful and similar outcomes after 3 years of function.• Short implants take considerably lower operation time with decreased surgical complications and postoperative patient discomfort.• More RCTs with longer follow-up times and larger sample sizes are necessary to validate the current findings.• implant length engaged in alveolar bone does not appear to influence the degree of peri-implant bone resorption after a medium-term period of 3 years.
Contributing factors affecting success of short implant Surgical protocol • Undersized implant bed preparation. • lateral bone condensation.
Contributing factors affecting success of short implant Implant selection • Implant with geometrical designs that increased primary stability • Modified shape • Self-tapping threads • Tapered profiles • Flared necks
Contributing factors affecting success of short implant Implant surface characteristics • Rough implants offer extensive surfaces for osseointegration and therefore allow the clinician to consider usage of short implants (Gentile et al. 2005) • Survival rate of implants with roughened surface (96.6 %) is significantly higher than the survival rate of implants with machined surface (88 %) (Chiapasco et al. 2009) • It is apparent that rough-surfaced dental implants have significantly higher success rates compared with implants with smoother surfaces (Javed et al. 2011)
Contributing factors affecting success of short implant Crown to implant ratio and occlusal forces • (Tawil et al. 2006) placed 262 Branemark implants (10 mm or less in length), the patients were followed 12 to 108 months and evaluate marginal bone loss. They concluded that when the load distribution is favorable, increased crown-to-implant ratios are not a major risk factor • reduction of the occlusal table • flattening of the cuspal inclines
Contributing factors affecting success of short implant Crown to implant ratio and occlusal forces • (Nedir et al. 2006) 7-year study of ITI implants, the implant-to-crown ratio ranged from 1.05 to 1.80, and no detrimental consequences on the final success rate were noted.
Contributing factors affecting success of short implant Crown to implant ratio and occlusal forces • (Blanes et al. 2007) reported the results of 10 years prospective study with 192 implants placed in the posterior region, A total of 51 implants showed a clinical C/I ratio equal to or greater than 2., three implants failed, giving a cumulative survival rate of 94.1%. • (Blanes 2009) Systematic review the current literature shows that the C/I ratios of implant-supported reconstructions do not influence peri-implant crestal bone loss.
ITI Congress Middle EastThank You!Shukran! www.iti.org