A Clinical Paradigm and Pertinent Literature Review for Placing Short Implants

Suellan G. Yao and James B. Fine*

A Clinical Paradigm and Pertinent Literature Review for Placing Short Implants. Placing an implant to replace missing teeth can be challenging because of lack of vertical and/or horizontal bone ridge, maxillary sinus pneumatization and inferior alveolar nerve position. Additional surgical procedures may be necessary, with varying predictability, where vertical augmentation being the least predictable.

An alternative option is to place short implants and exclude the additional surgical grafting procedures. By reviewing studies, this paper explores the predictability of the short implants for use in the methods. Bicon SHORT® implants are available in 5 and 6 mm lengths and seem to be able to overcome such limits but more long-term studies are still needed to determine long-term prognosis and success of short implants in terms of them being comparable or equal to longer or standard length implants.

Patients lose their teeth for various reasons such as caries, periodontal disease or trauma. When patients are missing a tooth/ teeth, they have several options for replacement, such as removable dentures, fixed prostheses and endosteal implants. Which option is best for the patient depends on several factors such as oral anatomy, esthetics and finances.

Implants are often appealing to patients because of their ability to closely mimic a natural tooth in terms of appearance and function. However, placing an implant can be challenging because of bone ridge height and/or width, maxillary sinus pneumatization and position of the inferior alveolar nerve, and these may require additional surgical procedures such as maxillary sinus membrane elevation, and bone graft, distraction osteogenesis, guided bone regeneration, onlay bone graft and displacement of the inferior alveolar nerve.

Dent Open J. 2021; 7(1): 16-24. doi: 10.17140/DOJ-7-145