Volume 30, Issue S19 p. 282
ABSTRACTS
Free Access

A prospective evaluation of short dental implants in posterior region of the jaws: One year of follow-up

Guilherme Siqueira Ibelli

Guilherme Siqueira Ibelli

Faculdade de Odontologia de Araraquara – UNESP, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
Guilherme Josè Pimentel Lopes De Oliveira

Guilherme Josè Pimentel Lopes De Oliveira

Universidade Federal de Uberl‚ndia, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
Francisco de Assis Mollo Junior

Francisco de Assis Mollo Junior

Faculdade de Odontologia de Araraquara – UNESP, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
Rogèrio Margonar

Rogèrio Margonar

Universidade de Araraquara – UNIARA, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
Thallita Pereira Queiroz

Thallita Pereira Queiroz

Universidade de Araraquara – UNIARA, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 25 September 2019

15826 Poster Display Clinical Research – Peri-implant Biology

Background

Short implants have become a therapeutic option for oral rehabilitation in areas with lacking of bone availability, mainly in the posterior region of the mandible since the use of the short implants is a less invasive and expensive treatment compared to the grafting procedures

Aim/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success rate of short dental implants compared to conventional implants after one year of follow-up

Material and Methods

Short implants (n = 15) and conventional implants (n = 37) with external hexagonal platform implants were place in 16 patients at the posterior region of the mandible. The clinical periimplantar probing, the resonance frequency analysis, the periimplantar bone level and radiographic bone density were collected in four moments- installation of the prostheses (T0), 90 days (T1), 180 days (T2) and 360 days (T3) of installation of the prostheses

Results

No implant was lost during the evaluation period and no statistically significant difference was observed for the values of analysis by frequency of resonance, depth of sounding and radiographic bone density between the groups compared. With regard to periimplantar bone height, the values presented by short implants at T0 and T1 were lower than for conventional implants (P < 0.05), becoming similar to the conventional implants from the T2

Conclusion and Clinical Implications

The short implants obtained similar success rate with the conventional implants becoming a viable option of rehabilitation treatment

    The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.