Yıl 2019, Cilt 22 , Sayı 3, Sayfalar 276 - 282 2019-09-09

The Diameter and Length Properties of Single Posterior Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study

Nermin DEMİRKOL [1] , Mehmet DEMİRKOL [2]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the length and diameter properties of single dental implants that posteriorly placed on the mandible and maxilla.

Materials and Methods: Two hundred ninety three posterior single dental implants  were evaluated in this retrospective study by same surgical procedure from 2010 to 2016 years. Demographics of patients, anatomic localizations, implant characteristics (length and diameter), satisfaction of the patient and implant loss were recorded. Implants that placed only single in posterior defect site (premolar or molar) with limited by a natural tooth or a prosthetic restored tooth on the either side of edentulous region were included. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for the satisfaction of the patients. The descriptive statistical analysis were done.

Results: A total of 275 patients with 293 dental implants (139 male and 136 female), ranging from 18 to 72 years (42.13 mean years) were analyzed.  The majority of the dental implants were inserted mandible (156, 53.3%), 137 in maxilla (137, 46.7%). The first molar region was the most implantation area, inserting with 181 (61.9%) implants, of which 115 (39.3%) were in mandible, 66 (22.6%) in maxilla. The most frequent implant diameter placed was the 4 mm (54, 18.4%) and 12 mm (94, 32%) was the most frequent used implant length. Nine implants were failed and all success rate was found to be 97%.

Conclusion: According to these results, single dental implants in the posterior region can be used safely with high success rates.       

Mandible, maxilla, dental implant
  • Referans1 Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, Belser UC, Lang NP. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:161-172
  • Referans2 Buser D, Schenk R, Steinemann S, Fiorellini J, Fox C, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:889-902
  • Referans3 Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012;91:242-248
  • Referans4 Li T, Hu K, Cheng L, Ding Y, Ding Y, Shao J, Kong L. Optimum selection of the dental implant diameter and length in the posterior mandible with poor bone quality–A 3D finite element analysis. Appl Math Model 2011;35:446-456
  • Referans5 Javed F, Romanos GE. Role of implant diameter on long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:1-10
  • Referans6 Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:143-152
  • Referans7 Himmlova L, Dostalova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:20-25
  • Referans8 Winkler S, Morris HF, Ochi S. Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter. Ann Periodontol 2000;5:22-31
  • Referans9 Hagi D, Deporter DA, Pilliar R, Arenovich T. A targeted review of study outcomes with short (< or = 7 mm) endosseous dental implants placed in partially edentulous patients. J Periodontol 2004;75:798-804
  • Referans10 das Neves FD, Fones D, Bernardes SR, do Prado CJ, Neto AJF. Short implants--an analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:86-93
  • Referans11 Tan K, Pjetursson, BE, Lang, NP, Chan, ES. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:654–666
  • Referans12 Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:119-130
  • Referans13 Shin SW, Bryant SR, Zarb GA. A retrospective study on the treatment outcome of wide-bodied implants. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:52-58
  • Referans14 Jung RE, Al-Nawas B, Araujo M, Avila-Ortiz G, Barter S, Brodala N, Chappuis V, Chen B, De Souza A, Almeida RF, Fickl S, Finelle G, Ganeles J, Gholami H, Hammerle C, Jensen S, Jokstad A, Katsuyama H, Kleinheinz J, Kunavisarut C, Mardas N, Monje A, Papaspyridakos P, Payer M, Schiegnitz E, Smeets R, Stefanini M, Ten Bruggenkate C, Vazouras K, Weber HP, Weingart D, Windisch P. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29 Suppl 16:69-77
  • Referans15 Villarinho EA, Triches DF, Alonso FR, Mezzomo LAM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RSA. Risk factors for single crowns supported by short (6-mm) implants in the posterior region: A prospective clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:671-680
  • Referans16 Kim YK, Kim SG, Yun PY, Hwang JW, Son MK. Prognosis of single molar implants: a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:401-407
  • Referans17 Guljé FL, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Single restorations in the resorbed posterior mandible supported by 6-mm implants: A 1-year prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e465–e471
  • Referans18 Lee SA, Lee CT, Fu MM, Elmisalati W, Chuang SK. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of limited vertical height in the posterior region: short implants (5 to 8 mm) vs longer implants (> 8 mm) in vertically augmented sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1085-1097
  • Referans19 Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Duyck J, Quirynen M, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part I: A longitudinal clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:381-389
  • Referans20 Misch CE, Steignga J, Barboza E, Misch-Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C. Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study. J Periodontol 2006;77:1340-1347
  • Referans21 Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:667-676
  • Referans22 Ling Sun H, Huang C, Wu YR, Shi B. Failure rates of short dental implants and factors influencing their failure: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:816–825
  • Referans23 Mezzomo LA, Miller R, Triches D, Alonso F, Shinkai RS. Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:191–213
  • Referans24 Monje A, Fu JH, Chan HL, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Catena A, Wang HL. Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Periodontol 2013;84:1783–1791
  • Referans25 Santiago Junior FJ, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, de Carvalho PS. Stress analysis in bone tissue around single implants with different diameters and veneering materials: a 3-D finite element study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2013;33:4700–4714
  • Referans26 Kido, H, Schulz EE, Kumar A, Lozada J, Saha S. Implant diameter and bone density: effect on initial stability and pull-out resistance. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:163-169
  • Referans27 Ivanoff CJ, Gröndahl K, Sennerby L, Bergström C, Lekholm U. Influence of variations in implant diameters: a 3- to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:173-180
  • Referans28 Pieri F, Forlivesi C, Caselli E, Corinaldesi G. Narrow- (3.0 mm) versus standard-diameter (4.0 and 4.5 mm) implants for splinted partial fixed restoration of posterior mandibular and maxillary jaws: A 5-year retrospective cohort study. J Periodontol 2017;88:338-347
  • Referans29 Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Long- term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: A retrospective study with at least 8- year follow- up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:76-81
Birincil Dil en
Konular Sağlık Bilimleri ve Hizmetleri
Bölüm Original Research Articles

Orcid: 0000-0002-2415-5977
Yazar: Nermin DEMİRKOL (Sorumlu Yazar)
Kurum: Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep
Ülke: Turkey

Orcid: 0000-0003-1973-0364
Yazar: Mehmet DEMİRKOL
Kurum: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep
Ülke: Turkey


Başvuru Tarihi : 19 Mart 2019
Kabul Tarihi : 9 Nisan 2019
Yayımlanma Tarihi : 9 Eylül 2019

EndNote %0 Cumhuriyet Dental Journal The Diameter and Length Properties of Single Posterior Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study %A Nermin Demirkol , Mehmet Demirkol %T The Diameter and Length Properties of Single Posterior Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study %D 2019 %J Cumhuriyet Dental Journal %P 1302-5805-2146-2852 %V 22 %N 3 %R doi: 10.7126/cumudj.541657 %U 10.7126/cumudj.541657