Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Journal Impact Factor (JIF 2024) – 3.9
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI 2024) - 1.36
Scopus CiteScore (2024) – 5.0 (CiteScore Tracker – 5.8)
Index Copernicus Value (ICV 2024) – 178.25
MNiSW – 70 pts
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – bimonthly


 

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2026, vol. 63, nr 2, March-April, p. 295–302

doi: 10.17219/dmp/192213

Publication type: original article

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Cite as:


Guarnieri R, Savio L, Bermond Des Ambrois A, et al. Effect of a platform switch and a laser microgrooved coronal design on short dental implants: A multicenter retrospective study. Dent Med Probl. 2026;63(2):295–302. doi:10.17219/dmp/192213

Effect of a platform switch and a laser-microgrooved coronal design on short dental implants: A multicenter retrospective study

Renzo Guarnieri1,2,A,B,C,D,E, Luca Savio3,B, Alessandro Bermond Des Ambrois4,C, Paolo Ghensi5,B, Francesco Zuffetti6,C, Rodolfo Reda7,8,C, Dario Di Nardo1,7,B,C, Luca Testarelli7,8,A,B,E,F

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

2 Private practice, Treviso, Italy

3 Private practice, Turin, Italy

4 Private practice, Ivrea, Italy

5 Private practice, Cembra, Italy

6 Private practice, Milan, Italy

7 Private practice, Rome, Italy

8 Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy

Graphical abstract


Graphical abstracts

Highlights


  • Short implants (<10 mm) may be considered as an alternative to regenerative procedures in the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla.
  • The use of platform switching, appropriate macrogeometry and surface treatment promotes connective tissue stabilization at the implant collar.
  • Short implants can effectively support single crowns in atrophied posterior alveolar ridges with high long-term success rates.

Abstract

Background. The presence of severe atrophy in proximity to the maxillary sinus or the inferior alveolar nerve is a primary indication for the use of short dental implants. The placement of standard-length implants in such cases often requires complex regenerative procedures, leading to prolonged healing time and an increased invasiveness of the surgical procedure.

Objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate crestal bone remodeling, implant success, complications, and implant- and patient-related risk factors associated with the use of short, platform-switched dental implants with a laser-microgrooved collar for prosthetic rehabilitation of atrophic posterior jaws.

Material and methods. This multicenter retrospective study involved a chart review of medical records from 5 private dental clinics. Variables such as age, sex, smoking, periodontal disease, systemic diseases, medications, anatomical location, implant diameter and length, crown-to-implant ratio, and type of placement were collected. A total of 132 short implants placed in 84 patients were analyzed, with a follow-up of 3–5 years (mean (M): 4.2 ±0.8 years).

Results. Eight short implants failed, including 62.5% of those affected by peri-implantitis. The implant-level and patient-level success rates were 93.9% and 95.0%, respectively. The mean crestal bone loss (CBL) was 0.385 ±0.7 mm. Univariate regression analysis revealed that female sex, smoking status and periodontal disease were significantly associated with implant success at both the implant and patient levels.

Conclusions. Platform-switched short implants with a laser-microgrooved coronal design demonstrated high success rates in atrophic posterior jaws after 3–5 years of function, with stable crestal bone levels.

Keywords: short dental implant, platform switch, laser-microgrooved collar

Introduction

Osseointegrated dental implants with a conventional length of 10 mm or greater represent a well-established modality for the prosthetic rehabilitation of partially and completely edentulous patients. However, their use in cases of severe posterior jaw atrophy, particularly in proximity to the inferior alveolar nerve or the maxillary sinus, often requires additional bone augmentation techniques, which increase both the biological and economic burden for patients.1, 2, 3, 4 In recent years, short dental implants (<10 mm) have been proposed as an alternative approach to avoid advanced bone augmentation procedures in atrophic jaws.5, 6, 7 However, the literature reports conflicting data regarding the success rates of short implants in the atrophic posterior alveolar ridge.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 First studies on short dental implants with machined (smooth) surfaces indicated that reduced bone-to-implant contact could represent an important risk factor for failure, especially in low-density bone, such as the atrophic posterior maxilla.8, 9, 10, 11, 12 In recent years, the use of short dental implants with textured surfaces, which augment the integrated surface area, has made it possible to overcome this limitation.13, 14 Preliminary studies have indicated that short implants with textured surfaces present clinical outcomes and success rates comparable to those of standard-length implants in the posterior maxilla.13, 14

The criteria for defining implant success remain a mat­ter of ongoing debate. However, especially for short implants, the maintenance of crestal bone stability is of utmost importance.15 It is generally accepted that bone loss of up to 2 mm during the first year of functional loading, followed by an annual loss of approx. 0.2 mm around the implant neck, can be considered physiological.16 Nevertheless, even this level of crestal bone loss (CBL) may pose a significant concern for the long-term success of short implants compared to standard-length implants. For example, after 5 years of loading, a bone loss of approx. 2.0–2.5 mm around a 6-mm implant would correspond to nearly half of the implant length.

Various implant neck designs and surface modifications have been proposed to minimize CBL. Among these, a platform switch associated with laser-ablated microchannels placed within the implant collar has shown favorable results.17 Platform switching involves the use of a prosthetic abutment with a smaller diameter than the implant platform, thereby influencing the peri-implant biological width through geometric modi­fication of the supracrestal connective tissue space. Additionally, laser-microgrooved surfaces have been devel­oped to guide the alignment and the subsequent growth of fibroblasts at the implant neck (Figure 1).18, 19, 20 Histological studies in humans have demonstrated a different organization of peri-implant soft tissues around laser-microgrooved surfaces compared to machined (smooth) surfaces, characterized by an intimate physical contact of connective tissue and perpendicularly oriented collagen fibers along the laser-ablated, microgrooved implant necks.21

Previous studies evaluating standard-length, platform-switched implants with a laser-microgrooved collar have indicated that the configuration of the coronal part of the implant may counteract CBL.18 To the best of our knowledge, no studies have investigated the combined effect of platform switching and a laser-microgrooved collar on the stability of the marginal bone in short dental implants. Therefore, the objective of the current multicenter retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of short dental implants featuring a platform switch and a laser-microgrooved collar in atrophic posterior maxillae and mandibles after 3–5 years of loading.

Material and methods

A retrospective, multicenter, clinical and radiographic study was conducted. A clinical database of subjects previously treated within an approved research framework was used; therefore, this study did not require additional approval from an ethics committee. All patients provided written informed consent, and the study followed the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki on experimentation involving human subjects. Patients were treated in 5 private dental clinics.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged ≥18 years; absence of medical conditions considered contra­indications to implant surgery; no history of alcohol or drug abuse; presence of resorbed posterior edentulous jaws requiring prosthetic rehabilitation with dental implants; and the presence of residual bone height to allow placement of implants of at least 6 mm or 7.5 mm in length, as well as residual bone width of at least 4.6 mm, as assessed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

The following exclusion criteria were implemented: poor oral hygiene (full-mouth plaque score and full-mouth bleeding score >25%); and discontinuation of supportive periodontal therapy.

Patients were classified as periodontally compromised when ≥3 mm of attachment loss and ≥30% of radiographic bone loss affecting at least 30% of sites were present.

The analysis included 84 patients (44 men (52.4%) and 40 women (47.6%); mean age: 52.49 ±11.23 years) who underwent implant therapy between December 2015 and December 2018. Patients with severely atrophied, partially edentulous ridges (Classes III and IV according to Cawood and Howell19), with ≥8 mm of residual bone height and a thickness of ≥6 mm who received at least 1 short implant (≤7.5 mm) supporting a single crown were included in the study (Figure 2). Smokers, patients with periodontal disease (treated or untreated) and individuals with systemic conditions not considered absolute contraindications to implant surgery were included. Intraoral radiographs, CBCT scans, diagnostic wax patterns, and surgical templates were used for presurgical evaluation. At the end of the follow-up period (mean (M): 4.2 ±0.8 years), a total of 132 short implants were evaluated.

Surgical protocol

The same surgical protocol was applied in all patients. Antibiotic therapy consisted of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid (Augmentin; GlaxoSmithKline, Verona, Italy) at a dose of 1 g twice a day for 7 days, and rinses with 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate solution (Dentosan; Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, USA) twice daily for 1 min prior to surgery. Infiltrations of articaine with epinephrine (Citocartin 1.7 mL; Molteni Dental, Milan, Italy) were used for local anesthesia. A full-thickness flap was then elevated at the level of the keratinized mucosa, with care taken to preserve the periodontal integrity of adjacent teeth. Implant placement was carried out according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Finally, 4-0 or 5-0 monofila­ment sutures were used and left in place for 10 days. Postoperatively, ibuprofen 600 mg was prescribed, with an additional dose administered after 8 h. Second-stage surgery for placement of healing abutments was performed after 4–6 months, followed by prosthetic restoration delivery at 5–7 months after implant placement.

Implants

Short implants with a platform switch and a laser-microgrooved coronal design (Tapered Short; BioHorizons, Birmingham, USA) were used in all patients (Figure 3). The implants varied in diameter (4.6 mm and 5.8 mm) and length (6.0 mm and 7.5 mm), depending on the bone dimensions at each site.

Follow-up

Patients were recalled at 5–10, 30, and 90 days following implant placement for clinical evaluation. After crown delivery, patients were enrolled in a 6-month recall program for professional oral hygiene maintenance. The following parameters were recorded at crown delivery and at each control visit: number of sites with plaque; number of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP); probing depth (PD); and mucosal recession (REC). Additional variables included anatomical location, implant diameter and length, type of placement (immediate or conventional), smoking habits, presence of periodontal disease, systemic diseases, pharmacological therapies, and implant success (time). Based on the criteria proposed by Albrektsson et al.,16 implant success was defined as the absence of mobility, peri-implant radiolucency and pain, as well as the absence of infection, neuropathy, paresthesia, or any violation of the mandibular canal. In addition, annual bone loss after the first year of function was required to be <0.2 mm.

For radiographic assessment, an individualized acrylic device was fixed to the residual dentition, and a radiograph holder was constructed for each patient. This technique ensured that the same position of the radiograph film could be reproduced at each visit, and the angle of the radiograph would not deviate.

Crestal bone loss was assessed radiographically on the mesial and distal sides of each implant by subtracting the CBL value at baseline from CBL at the 3/5-year follow-up visits. Measurements were calculated using imaging software (Gendex™ VixWin™ Platinum; Gendex, Des Plaines, USA).

To ensure reproducibility, calibration of the examiners was performed (1 examiner per clinic) by repeated assessment of clinical and radiographic parameters in the same 10 patients and using the same radiographs at a 1-week interval, achieving an intraexaminer reliability of 90%.

The following clinical variables were recorded:

• plaque score: assessed at 4 sites per implant (mesial, midfacial, distal, and palatal) using a dichotomous scale (0 = no visible plaque at the soft tissue margin; 1 =  visible plaque at the soft tissue margin);

• probing depth: measured to the nearest 0.5 mm at 4 sites per implant (mesial, midfacial, distal, and palatal) using a manual probe (CP 15 UNC; Hu-Friedy Manufacturing, Co., LLC, Chicago, USA);

• bleeding on probing: recorded at 4 sites per implant (mesial, midfacial, distal, and palatal) using a dichotomous scale (0 = no bleeding; 1 = bleeding).

Statistical analysis

The sample size was determined based on previously published data.13, 14 The following parameters were used: a minimal detectable difference between means of 0.5; standard deviations on the difference between means of 0.7; an effect size of 0.71; a beta error of 10%; and a one-tailed alpha error of 5% with an 80% power. These calculations indicated that a minimum of 84 patients was required. Data analysis was conducted using the SAS/STAT® software (v. 9.2; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA). The data was analyzed to evaluate the survival rate of this type of rehabilitation at 5 years post-loading. Changes in CBL between baseline and 3/5-year follow-up were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Homogeneity of variance and normality were assessed using Levene’s test and the Shapiro–Wilk test, respectively.

Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for inter- and intragroup comparisons over time. Variability within and between subjects was used to estimate standard errors for regression coefficients. Bonferroni correction was used to maintain the overall type I error at α = 0.05.

Results

Out of the 84 patients included, 25 (29.8%) were smokers, 31 (36.9%) had been diagnosed with periodontal disease, while 8 (9.5%) and 3 (3.6%) presented type I and type II diabetes mellitus, respectively. Twenty individuals (23.8%) had other systemic diseases (Table 1). A total of 72 implants were placed in the maxilla (54.5%) and 60 in the mandible (45.5%). The distribution of patient- and implant-related variables is summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. At the end of the study period, 8 implants were lost in 6 patients. Of these, 5 implants (62.5%) were lost due to peri-implantitis. The implant-level and patient-level success rates were 93.9% and 95.0%, respectively (Table 3). Female sex, periodontal disease and smoking were significantly associated with implant failure at both the implant and patient levels (Table 4, Table 5). No statistically significant correlations were found between the remaining variables and short implant failure.

Regarding CBL, the mean values recorded after 5 years of follow-up were 0.38 ±0.7 mm at the mesial aspect and 0.39 ±0.6 mm at the distal aspect (Figure 4). Mean MBL values were higher in smokers (0.64 ±0.6 mm), periodontally compromised patients (0.66 ±0.4 mm) and females (0.61 ±0.7 mm). These differences were statistically significant.

Discussion

The present retrospective study aimed to evaluate crestal bone remodeling, implant success, complications, and implant- and patient-related risk factors associated with short, platform-switched dental implants with a laser-microgrooved collar used for prosthetic rehabilitation of atrophic posterior jaws over a follow-up period of 3–5 years. The majority of previously published studies have included 8-, 9- and 10-mm-long implants and patient populations without unfavorable conditions that could negatively influence implant success.9, 10, 19, 21, 22 In contrast, the present multicenter study exclusively evaluated 6.0- and 7.5-mm-long implants and included a broader patient population regardless of systemic conditions, periodontal status, smoking habits, or type of restoration. The results demonstrated that periodontal disease, smoking and female sex were significantly associated with short implant failure. The effect of a history of periodontitis on implant success has been widely documented.22, 23 However, only few studies reported data on short implants. Carra et al.evaluated the long-term outcomes of 213 short implants (≤10 mm) and reported comparable outcomes in patients with and without periodontal disease.22 Similar findings have been reported by Correia et al.24 in a sample of 202 patients (53% with a history of periodontal disease) and 689 implants, as well as by Zuffetti et al.,25 who analyzed 254 short implants (≤7.5 mm) in 174 patients, including 51 with a history of periodontitis. On the contrary, Hasanoglu Erbasar et al. noted a significant relationship between a history of periodontal disease and short implant failure.26 The findings of the current study indicate that patients with a history of periodontal disease are at increased risk of short implant failure. Despite strict adherence to supportive maintenance therapy during follow-up, peri-implantitis was diagnosed in 62.5% of implant failures. The etiology of periodontitis and peri-implantitis is bacterial.27 It can therefore be hypothesized that a similar complex pathogenic dysbiotic microbiota may trigger a dysregulated inflammatory or immune response, ultimately leading to the loss of both periodontal and peri-implant supporting tissues.27 However, further analysis is needed to confirm these results.

It is extensively documented that smoking is an important patient-related risk factor for the failure of standard-length dental implants.28 Its negative impact has also been documented for short implants.29 A recent systematic review reported a failure rate of 0.008 implants/year in smokers compared to 0.004 implants/year in non-smokers.29 In the present study, smokers comprised two-thirds of peri-implantitis cases. This data is in agreement with the study by Rinke et al.30 and Karoussis et al.,31 who reported a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis among smokers. The sig­nificant association between female sex and short implant failure may be related to a higher rate of periodontal disease and smoking within this subgroup in the present sample.

The use of short dental implants for the rehabilitation of atrophic jaws is supported by biomechanical evidence indicating that most of the load stress around dental implants is concentrated at the crestal bone level, while min­imal stress is distributed apically.32 Therefore, preserving crestal bone is critical for the success of short implants. In implants measuring 6.0–7.5 mm in length, even physiologi­cally acceptable levels of CBL may, over time, drastically reduce the percentage of bone anchorage.

Crestal bone loss has been associated with several factors, such as implant design, bone density, surgical trauma during implant placement, occlusal overload, and apical migration of the junctional epithelium to isolate bacterial infection or to establish the biological width.33

Platform switching34 and laser-microgrooved surfaces35 are implant design modifications aimed at reducing CBL. Platform switching involves the use of prosthetic abutments with a smaller diameter than the implant platform at the implant–abutment interface. This configuration results in a geometric manipulation of the supracrestal connective tissue, which thickens horizontally and may help protect the crestal bone from reabsorption. Another method attempting to reduce crestal bone remodeling is the use of a laser-microgrooved coronal surface at the implant neck. Laser-microgrooved surfaces were developed to modify cellular interactions with the titanium surface. These surfaces are created using controlled excimer laser ablation, which allows for the creation of a microgeometry characterized by parallel linear grooves with resolution in the micrometer range (Figure 1). Pre-clinical studies have shown that laser-microgrooved surfaces present a high potential for the growth of fibroblasts and effective inhibition of epithelial cell migration across the grooves.19 In contrast to implants with machined (smooth) necks, which typically exhibit a parallel distribution of collagen fibers, histological analyses have demonstrated that laser-microgrooved surfaces promote a more intimate connective tissue attachment, with fibers oriented perpendicularly to the implant surface.20 This configuration may contribute to improved protection of peri-implant crestal bone remodeling.35, 36, 37

Available literature indicates that CBL around short implants does not exceed the criteria accepted for standard-length implants. A literature review with a meta-analysis of 16 studies38, 39, 40 reported a mean CBL of 0.83 mm around short implants after 4 years of follow-up. In the present study, after 3–5 years of function, short platform-switched implants with laser-microgrooved collars exhibited a mean CBL of 0.385 mm. These results highlight the effectiveness of this configuration in preserving peri-implant marginal bone levels, even in short implants.41, 42

Limitations

However, the outcomes of the present study must be interpreted with caution due to several limitations, including the study’s retrospective design and the exclusive use of single crowns supported by short implants, which limits the possibility of evaluating the influence of different types of restorations on implant success. On the other hand, all eligible patients treated with short implants were included, regardless of their medical condition, smoking status or history of periodontitis, thereby minimizing selection bias and increasing the applicability of the study findings to the general population. Additional limitations include the multicenter nature of the study, involving different private clinics, and the lack of evaluation of potentially relevant variables, such as the presence or absence of keratinized mucosa.

It could be assumed that, due to aforementioned limitations, the present study may report more variable outcomes compared to efficacy studies with small, well-controlled and selective groups. However, effectiveness studies such as this one may better reflect outcomes achievable in routine clinical practice.

Conclusions

Short, platform-switched implants with laser-microgrooved collars supporting single crowns in atrophied posterior alveolar ridges demonstrate high long-term success rates. Furthermore, this implant design maintains stable crestal bone levels over time.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Data availability

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

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Use of AI and AI-assisted technologies

Not applicable.

Tables


Table 1. Frequency distribution of patient-related variables

Variable

Patients, n

%

Sex

male

44

52.4

female

40

47.6

Age [years]
M ±SD

52.2 ±10.93

Systemic diseases

none

53

63.1

type I diabetes mellitus

3

3.6

type II diabetes mellitus

8

9.5

hypertension

11

13.1

arrhythmia

1

1.2

asthma

1

1.2

hypercholesterolemia

2

2.4

hyperthyroidism

1

1.2

gastric ulcer

2

2.4

osteoporosis

1

1.2

rheumatic diseases

1

1.2

Smoking habits

no

59

70.2

yes

25

29.8

light smoker

7

28.0

moderate smoker

8

32.0

heavy smoker

10

40.0

History of periodontitis

no

53

63.1

yes

31

36.9

Total

84

100.0
M – mean; SD – standard deviation.
Table 2. Frequency distribution of implant-related variables

Variable

Implants, n

%

Anatomical location

posterior mandible

60

45.5

posterior maxilla

72

54.5

Implant placement

conventional

94

71.2

immediate

38

28.8

Bone regenerative therapy at the surgical site

no

118

89.4

yes

14

10.6

Implant diameter
[mm]

4.6

88

66.7

5.8

44

33.3

Implant length
[mm]

7.5

28

21.2

6.0

104

78.8

Total

132

100.0
Table 3. Distribution variables associated with failed (unsuccessful) short implants

Variable

Implant No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Patient

age

56

68

61

72

68

63

52

63

sex

F

M

F

F

F

M

F

M

medical history

DM-II

healthy

healthy

DM-II

healthy

healthy

DM-II

healthy

smoking

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

no

yes

periodontal disease

yes

no

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

Implant

localization

27

16

26

47

17

16

26

16

diameter
[mm]

4.6

5.4

5.4

4.6

5.4

4.6

4.6

4.6

length
[mm]

7.5

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

7.5

6.0

7.5

placement

conventional

immediate

conventional

conventional

conventional

conventional

conventional

conventional

bone regenerative therapy
at the surgical site

no

yes

yes

no

no

no

no

no

PI

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

no

no

follow-up [months]

58

55

52

49

52

54

54

60
DM-II – type II diabetes mellitus; F – female; M – male; PI – peri-implantitis.
Table 4. Results of univariate binary logistic regression analysis of short implant success at the implant level

Variable

B

SE

Wald

p-value

OR

95% CI for OR

lower

upper

Anatomical location

−0.442

0.301

1.799

0.235

0.668

0.331

1.156

Bone regenerative therapy
at the surgical site

−0.298

0.208

1.881

0.270

0.751

0.501

1.122

Implant diameter

−0.111

0.403

0.014

0.982

0.896

0.047

1.996

Implant length

0.288

0.227

1.924

0.198

1.333

0.787

2.001

Sex (female)

1.118

0.436

6.879

0.009*

3.076

1.325

7.054

Age

−0.025

0.002

1.594

0.202

0.989

0.939

1.018

Periodontal disease

−0.911

0.389

5.202

0.021*

0.398

0.182

0.872

Smoking

−0.058

0.011

25.873

0.001*

0.997

0.911

0.977

Diabetes mellitus

0.196

0.385

0.258

0.611

1.215

0.567

2.448

Other systemic diseases

2.801

0.914

9.345

0.062

11.562

2.775

33.892
SE – standard error; OR – odds ratio; CI – confidence interval; * statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Results of univariate binary logistic regression analysis of short implant success at the patient level

Variable

B

SE

Wald

p-value

OR

95% CI for OR

lower

upper

Sex (female)

1.347

0.490

7.997

0.007*

3.985

1.526

9.872

Age

−0.035

0.024

2.294

0.289

0.968

0.929

1.122

Periodontal disease

−0.933

0.456

4.185

0.045*

0.318

0.163

0.972

Smoking

−0.081

0.003

15.662

0.001*

0.820

0.818

0.991

Diabetes mellitus

0.176

0.469

0.141

0.708

1.194

0.467

2.848

Other systemic diseases

2.401

1.014

7.294

0.058

11.915

1.775

43.123
* statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Figures


Fig. 1. Short dental implant with a laser-microgrooved surface; on the right, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image at ×800 magnification
Fig. 2. Radiographic images of severely atrophic edentulous maxillary ridges
Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the design features of a short implant
Fig. 4. Radiographic images obtained before treatment (A), at delivery of the definitive crown (B), and after 3 years of follow-up (C)

References (42)

  1. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:237–259. PMID:19885448.
  2. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Orive G. Novel technique for the treatment of the severely atrophied posterior mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(5):1338–1346. doi:10.11607/jomi.3137
  3. Esposito M, Felice P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(5):CD008397. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008397.pub2
  4. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;2009(4):CD003607. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003607.pub4
  5. Stellingsma K, Raghoebar GM, Visser A, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. The extremely resorbed mandible, 10-year results of a randomized controlled trial on 3 treatment strategies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(8):926–932. doi:10.1111/clr.12184
  6. Friberg B, Gröndahl K, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI. Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Brånemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2(4):184–189. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00116.x
  7. Van Assche N, Michels S, Quirynen M, Naert I. Extra short dental implants supporting an overdenture in the edentulous maxilla: A proof of concept. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(5):567–576. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02235.x
  8. Anitua E, Piñas L, Begoña L, Orive G. Long-term retrospective evaluation of short implants in the posterior areas: Clinical results after 10–12 years. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41(4):404–411. doi:10.1111/jcpe.12222
  9. Lops D, Bressan E, Pisoni G, Cea N, Corazza B, Romeo E. Short implants in partially edentuolous maxillae and mandibles: A 10 to 20 years retrospective evaluation. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:351793. doi:10.1155/2012/351793
  10. Mertens C, Meyer-Bäumer A, Kappel H, Hoffmann J, Steveling HG. Use of 8-mm and 9-mm implants in atrophic alveolar ridges: 10-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(6):1501–1508. PMID:23189302.
  11. Reda R, Zanza A, Bellanova V, et al. Zinc oxide non-eugenol cement versus resinous cement on single implant restoration: A split-mouth study. J Compos Sci. 2023;7(3):128. doi:10.3390/jcs7030128
  12. Anitua E, Alkhraist MH, Piñas L, Begoña L, Orive G. Implant survival and crestal bone loss around extra-short implants supporting a fixed denture: The effect of crown height space, crown-to-implant ratio, and offset placement of the prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(3):682–689. doi:10.11607/jomi.3404
  13. Kotsovilis S, Fourmousis I, Karoussis IK, Bamia C. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of implant length on the survival of rough-surface dental implants. J Periodontol. 2009;80(11):1700–1718. doi:10.1902/jop.2009.090107
  14. Bratu E, Chan HL, Mihali S, et al. Implant survival rate and marginal bone loss of 6-mm short implants: A 2-year clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(6):1425–1428. doi:10.11607/jomi.3729
  15. Monje A, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, García-Nogales A, Fu JH, Wang HL. A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(10):1119–1124. doi:10.1111/clr.12236
  16. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1(1):11–25. PMID:3527955.
  17. Iorio-Siciliano V, Marenzi G, Blasi A, et al. Influence of platform-switched, laser-microtextured implant on marginal bone level: A 24-month case series study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(1):162–166. doi:10.11607/jomi.4130
  18. Ricci JL, Charvert J, Frenkel SR, et al. Bone response to laser microtextured surfaces. In: Davies JE, ed. Bone Engineering. Toronto, Canada: Em2 Inc.; 2000:282–294.
  19. Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988;17(4):232–236. doi:10.1016/s0901-5027(88)80047-x
  20. Nevins M, Nevins ML, Camelo M, Boyesen JL, Kim DM. Human histologic evidence of a connective tissue attachment to a dental implant. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008;28(2):111–121. PMID:18546807.
  21. Sánchez-Garcés MA, Costa-Berenguer X, Gay-Escoda C. Short implants: A descriptive study of 273 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(4):508–516. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00301.x
  22. Carra MC, Rangé H, Swerts PJ, Tuand K, Vandamme K, Bouchard P. Effectiveness of implant-supported fixed partial denture in patients with history of periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2022;49 Suppl 24:208–223. doi:10.1111/jcpe.13481
  23. Reda R, Zanza A, Di Nardo D, Bellanova V, Xhajanka E, Testarelli L. Implant survival rate and prosthetic complications of OT equator retained maxillary overdenture: A cohort study. Prosthesis. 2022;4(4):730–738. doi:10.3390/prosthesis4040057
  24. Correia F, Gouveia S, Felino AC, Costa AL, Almeida RF. Survival rate of dental implants in patients with history of periodontal disease: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(4):927–934. doi:10.11607/jomi.3732
  25. Zuffetti F, Testarelli L, Bertani P, Vassilopoulos S, Testori T, Guarnieri R. A retrospective multicenter study on short implants with a laser-microgrooved collar (≤7.5 mm) in posterior edentulous areas: Radiographic and clinical results up to 3 to 5 years. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78(2):217–227. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2019.08.007
  26. Hasanoglu Erbasar GN, Hocaoğlu TP, Erbasar RC. Risk factors associated with short dental implant success: A long-term retrospective evaluation of patients followed up for up to 9 years. Braz Oral Res. 2019;33:e030. doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0030
  27. Lasserre JF, Brecx MC, Toma S. Oral microbes, biofilms and their role in periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Materials (Basel). 2018;11(10):1802. doi:10.3390/ma11101802
  28. Mustapha AD, Salame Z, Chrcanovic BR. Smoking and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;58(1):39. doi:10.3390/medicina58010039
  29. Cruz RS, Lemos CAA, Batista VES, et al. Short implants versus longer implants with maxillary sinus lift. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32:e86. doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0086
  30. Rinke S, Ohl S, Ziebolz D, Lange K, Eickholz P. Prevalence of periimplant disease in partially edentulous patients: A practice-based cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(8):826–833. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02061.x
  31. Karoussis IK, Salvi GE, Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Brägger U, Hämmerle CHF, Lang NP. Long-term implant prognosis in patients with and without a history of chronic periodontitis: A 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(3):329–339. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.000.00934.x
  32. Kang N, Wu YY, Gong P, Yue L, Ou GM. A study of force distribution of loading stresses on implant-bone interface on short implant length using 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014;118(5):519–523. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2014.05.021
  33. Guarnieri R, Reda R, Zanza A, Miccoli G, Nardo DD, Testarelli L. Can peri-implant marginal bone loss progression and a-MMP-8 be considered indicators of the subsequent onset of peri-implantitis? A 5-year study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(11):2599. doi:10.3390/diagnostics12112599
  34. Messias A, Rocha S, Wagner W, et al. Peri-implant marginal bone loss reduction with platform-switching components: 5-year post-loading results of an equivalence randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(6):678–687. doi:10.1111/jcpe.13119
  35. Chen Z, Zhang Y, Li J, Wang HL, Yu H. Influence of laser-microtextured surface collar on marginal bone loss and peri-implant soft tissue response: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2017;88(7):651–662. doi:10.1902/jop.2017.160805
  36. Weiner S, Simon J, Ehrenberg DS, Zweig B, Ricci JL. The effects of laser microtextured collars upon crestal bone levels of dental implants. Implant Dent. 2008;17(2):217–228. doi:10.1097/ID.0b013e3181779016
  37. Guarnieri R, Reda R, Di Nardo D, Miccoli G, Zanza A, Testarelli L. Clinical, radiographic, and biochemical evaluation of two-piece versus one-piece single implants with a laser-microgrooved collar surface after 5 years of functional loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022;24(5):676–682. doi:10.1111/cid.13118
  38. Guarnieri R, Reda R, Di Nardo D, Miccoli G, Zanza A, Testarelli L. In vitro direct and indirect cytotoxicity comparative analysis of one pre-hydrated versus one dried acellular porcine dermal matrix. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(5):1937. doi:10.3390/ma15051937
  39. Mezzomo LA, Miller R, Triches D, Alonso F, Shinkai RSA. Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41(2):191–213. doi:10.1111/jcpe.12180
  40. Guarnieri R, Reda R, Di Nardo D, Pagnoni F, Zanza A, Testarelli L. Effects of maintenance implant therapy with and without periodic removal and decontamination of prosthetic components on inflammatory peri-implant parameters. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2023;(7):s118–s128. doi:10.11607/prd.6395
  41. Tonin BSH, Peixoto RF, Fu J, De Mattos MGC, Macedo AP. Influence of the frameworks of implant-supported prostheses and implant connections on stress distribution. Dent Med Probl. 2023;60(4):551–557. doi:10.17219/dmp/153060
  42. Dovigo S, Massariol M, Gandini A, Zuffellato N. Instantaneous dental implant loading technique by fixed dentures: A retrospective cohort study. Dent Med Probl. 2023;60(3):375–383. doi:10.17219/dmp/154981
© Wroclaw Medical University