CLINICALLY AND ANATOMICALLY SUBSTANTIATED USE OF SHORT CYLINDRICAL DENTAL IMPLANTS IN CONDITIONS OF BONE DEFICIENCY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32689/2663-0672-2026-1-9Keywords:
short implants, anatomical variability, morphometry, bone deficiency, ridge splitting, BiconAbstract
Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of short cylindrical implants in patients with limited bone volume and to substantiate the surgical protocol based on anatomical and morphometric variability. Materials and methods. A clinical case involving placement of a short cylindrical implant in conditions of severe ridge atrophy following traumatic extraction was analyzed. CBCT data, ridge-splitting technique, and morphometric characteristics of the maxillofacial region described by Yakymenko R.O., Vovk O.Yu., and Onashko Yu.M. were used as reference criteria. Results. Stable functional and morphological outcomes were achieved: high primary stability, adequate bone volume achieved without GBR, stable soft-tissue contours, and absence of marginal bone loss after 6 months of loading. Conclusions. Short cylindrical implants represent an effective alternative to bone augmentation in cases of significant bone deficiency. Incorporating anatomical and morphometric variability into planning allows safe, individualized, and minimally invasive treatment.
References
Lekholm, U., & Zarb, G. (1985). Tissue-integrated prostheses. Quintessence.
Esposito, M., Pellegrino, G., Pistilli, R., & Felice, P. (2011). Rehabilitation of posterior atrophic edentulous jaws: prostheses supported by 5 mm short implants or by longer implants in augmented bone? One-year results from a pilot randomised clinical trial. European Journal of Oral Implantology, 4(1), 21–30.
Uehara, P. N., Matsubara, V. H., Igai, F., Sesma, N., Mukai, M. K., & Araujo, M. G. (2018). Short dental implants (≤7 mm) versus longer implants in augmented bone area: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The Open Dentistry Journal, 12, 354–365. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010354
Thoma, D. S., Haas, R., Sporniak-Tutak, K., Garcia, A., Taylor, T. D., & Hämmerle, C. H. (2018). Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11–15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 5-year data. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 45(12), 1465–1474. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13025
Naenni, N., Sahrmann, P., Schmidlin, P. R., Attin, T., Wiedemeier, D. B., Sapata, V., Hämmerle, C. H. F., & Jung, R. E. (2018). Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Dental Research, 97(8), 887–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034518758036
Misch, C. E. (2007). Contemporary Implant Dentistry (3rd ed.). Mosby.
Якименко, Р.О., & Вовк, О.Ю. (2019). Морфометрія щелепно-лицевої ділянки. Вісник стоматології, 4, 12–18.
Онашко, Ю.М., Дубина, С.О., & Вовк, О.Ю. (2020). Анатомічна мінливість нижньої щелепи. Клінічна анатомія та оперативна хірургія, 19(2), 45–52.
Emfietzoglou, R., & Dereka, X. (2024). Survival rates of short dental implants (≤6 mm) used as an alternative to longer (>6 mm) implants for the rehabilitation of posterior partial edentulism: a systematic review of RCTs. Dentistry Journal, 12(6), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12060185
Rossi, F., Botticelli, D., Cesaretti, G., De Santis, E., Storelli, S., & Lang, N. P. (2016). Use of short implants (6 mm) in a single-tooth replacement: a 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 27(4), 458–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12564
Pommer, B., Frantal, S., Willer, J., Posch, M., Watzek, G., & Tepper, G. (2011). Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 38(9), 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01750.x
Guljé, F. L., Abrahamsson, I., Chen, S., Stanford, C., Zadeh, H., & Palmer, R. (2013). Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 24(12), 1325–1331. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12001
Felice, P., Pistilli, R., Piattelli, M., Soardi, E., Corvino, V., & Esposito, M. (2012). Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5×5 mm implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. European Journal of Oral Implantology, 5(2), 149–161.
Calvo-Guirado, J. L., Gomez-Moreno, G., Lopez-Mari, L., Guardia, J., Martinez-Gonzalez, J. M., & Barone, A. (2011). Ridge expansion of atrophic posterior mandible with short implant placement: a 3-year follow-up. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 13(4), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00221.x
Anitua, E., Alkhraist, M. H., Pinas, L., Begona, L., & Orive, G. (2014). Implant survival and crestal bone loss around extra-short implants supporting a fixed denture. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 29(3), 682–689. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3460
