Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Conventional Implants in the Posterior Mandible

Background: Because of the posterior mandible’s shortened vertical bone height, using dental implants, there comes with special difficulties. It has been suggested that using short implants (≤8 mm) would prevent the need for subsequent surgical operations such as bone grafting. In total, 180 implant...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Nasser Raqe Alqhtani
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2024-12-01
Series:Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1165_24
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1841543514950729728
author Nasser Raqe Alqhtani
author_facet Nasser Raqe Alqhtani
author_sort Nasser Raqe Alqhtani
collection DOAJ
description Background: Because of the posterior mandible’s shortened vertical bone height, using dental implants, there comes with special difficulties. It has been suggested that using short implants (≤8 mm) would prevent the need for subsequent surgical operations such as bone grafting. In total, 180 implants were inserted into the posterior mandible in 120 individuals who were part of this retrospective cohort research. Ninety patients in the short implant group (implants ≤8 mm) and 90 patients in the standard implant group (implants ≥10 mm) were split into two groups. Expert medical professionals installed all of the implants, and fixed prostheses were used to repair them. Over a 5-year follow-up period, clinical indicators such as implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), probing depth (PD), and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Whereas conventional implants showed a survival rate of 95.6% (P = 0.42), the survival rate of short implants was 92.5%. The standard implant group (mean MBL: 1.0 mm) and the short implant group (mean MBL: 1.3 mm) had somewhat increased bone loss, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.15). The two groups’ mean probing depth and patient satisfaction ratings were similar, with 2.6 mm for short implants and 2.4 mm for traditional implants (P = 0.38). Both implant types showed good clinical results overall with little side effects. Conclusion: Comparing short implants to standard implants in the posterior mandible, comparable long-term clinical results are shown. Short implants are a good substitute even if they have a little greater bone loss rate. This is especially true when there is a restricted vertical bone height.
format Article
id doaj-art-08eaed9f4ffe4cd688ca84d1c24554c3
institution Kabale University
issn 0976-4879
0975-7406
language English
publishDate 2024-12-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
spelling doaj-art-08eaed9f4ffe4cd688ca84d1c24554c32025-01-13T10:12:52ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062024-12-0116Suppl 4S3661S366310.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1165_24Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Conventional Implants in the Posterior MandibleNasser Raqe AlqhtaniBackground: Because of the posterior mandible’s shortened vertical bone height, using dental implants, there comes with special difficulties. It has been suggested that using short implants (≤8 mm) would prevent the need for subsequent surgical operations such as bone grafting. In total, 180 implants were inserted into the posterior mandible in 120 individuals who were part of this retrospective cohort research. Ninety patients in the short implant group (implants ≤8 mm) and 90 patients in the standard implant group (implants ≥10 mm) were split into two groups. Expert medical professionals installed all of the implants, and fixed prostheses were used to repair them. Over a 5-year follow-up period, clinical indicators such as implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), probing depth (PD), and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Whereas conventional implants showed a survival rate of 95.6% (P = 0.42), the survival rate of short implants was 92.5%. The standard implant group (mean MBL: 1.0 mm) and the short implant group (mean MBL: 1.3 mm) had somewhat increased bone loss, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.15). The two groups’ mean probing depth and patient satisfaction ratings were similar, with 2.6 mm for short implants and 2.4 mm for traditional implants (P = 0.38). Both implant types showed good clinical results overall with little side effects. Conclusion: Comparing short implants to standard implants in the posterior mandible, comparable long-term clinical results are shown. Short implants are a good substitute even if they have a little greater bone loss rate. This is especially true when there is a restricted vertical bone height.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1165_24clinical outcomesconventional implantsimplant survivalmarginal bone lossposterior mandibleshort implants
spellingShingle Nasser Raqe Alqhtani
Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Conventional Implants in the Posterior Mandible
Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
clinical outcomes
conventional implants
implant survival
marginal bone loss
posterior mandible
short implants
title Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Conventional Implants in the Posterior Mandible
title_full Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Conventional Implants in the Posterior Mandible
title_fullStr Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Conventional Implants in the Posterior Mandible
title_full_unstemmed Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Conventional Implants in the Posterior Mandible
title_short Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Conventional Implants in the Posterior Mandible
title_sort long term clinical outcomes of short implants versus conventional implants in the posterior mandible
topic clinical outcomes
conventional implants
implant survival
marginal bone loss
posterior mandible
short implants
url https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1165_24
work_keys_str_mv AT nasserraqealqhtani longtermclinicaloutcomesofshortimplantsversusconventionalimplantsintheposteriormandible