Prosthetic Rehabilitation of an Ameloblastoma Case with Short Dental Implants

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 1 - 13, 07.03.2025

Parvin Jafarguliyev , Hümeyra Kocaelli

Öz

The use of short dental implants is a controversial issue in maxillofacial surgery. The aim of this study; To compile and discuss the current literature on short dental implants, as well as to present the rehabilitation of an ameloblastoma case with short dental implants.

Dental implants are generally used as a treatment option in partially or completely edentulous patients. Tooth loss in the jaws, especially in the posterior regions, supports the resorption process of bone tissue, causing greater proximity to the mandibular alveolar nerve and maxillary sinus, limiting the use of standard implants.

Ameloblastoma is a benign tumor with locally aggressive behavior; however, they may rarely (1%) transform into or be associated with a malignancy (malignant ameloblastoma or ameloblastic carcinoma). Treatment of ameloblastoma focuses on surgical resection with a wide margin of normal tissue due to the high propensity for locoregional invasion, but this is often associated with significant patient morbidity. Dental implants are an important component of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients after surgery for ameloblastoma. Various factors should be considered for the patient after surgery. Placement of implants should be done within the limits allowed by anatomical conditions. Therefore, shorter implants, which are considered simpler and more effective, can be used to rehabilitate atrophic jaws.

Clinical studies in the maxilla and mandible have shown that rehabilitation of patients with severe jaw atrophy using short and extra-short implants is a non-invasive, practical and highly successful treatment alternative to costly and time-consuming augmentation procedures.

Anahtar Kelimeler

short implant , ameloblastoma , dental implants

Bir Ameloblastoma Olgusunun Dental İmplantlar ile Protetik Rehabilitasyonu

Öz

Kısa dental implantların kullanımı, maksillofasiyal cerrahide tartışmalı bir konudur. Bu çalışmanın amacı; bir ameloblastoma olgusunun kısa dental implantlarla rehabilitasyonunun sunumunun yanısıra, kısa dental implantlarla ilgili güncel literatürü derlemek ve tartışmaktır.

Dental implantlar genellikle kısmen veya tamamen dişsiz hastalarda bir tedavi seçeneği olarak kullanılmaktadır. Çenelerde özellikle posterior bölgelerde diş kaybı, kemik dokusunun rezorpsiyon sürecini destekler, mandibular alveoler sinire ve maksiller sinüse daha fazla yakınlığa neden olarak daha standart implantların kullanımını sınırlar.

Ameloblastoma lokal agresif davranışa sahip iyi huylu bir tümördür; bununla birlikte, nadiren (%1) bir maligniteye (malign ameloblastoma veya ameloblastik karsinom) dönüşebilir veya bunlarla ilişkili olabilirler. Ameloblastomanın tedavisi, yüksek lokal-bölgesel invazyon eğilimi nedeniyle geniş bir normal doku marjı ile cerrahi rezeksiyona odaklanır, ancak bu genellikle önemli hasta morbiditesi ile ilişkilidir. Dental implantlar ameloblastomanın cerrahisinden sonra hastalar için multidisipliner rehabilitasyonun önemli bir bileşenidir. Ameliyat sonrası hasta için çeşitli faktörler dikkate alınmalıdır. İmplantların yerleştirilmesi, anatomik koşulların izin verdiği sınırlar dahilinde yapılması gerekmektedir.
Bu nedenle, atrofik çenelerin rehabilite edilmesinde daha basit ve daha etkili olduğu düşünülen kısa implantlar kullanılabilmektedir.

Maksilla ve mandibulada yapılan klinik çalışmalar, aşırı çene atrofisi olan hastaların, kısa ve ekstra kısa implantlar kullanılarak rehabilite edilmesinin maliyetli ve zaman alan augmentasyon prosedürlerine karşın noninvaziv, pratik ve oldukça başarılı bir tedavi alternatifi olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

kısa implant , ameloblastoma , dental implantlar

Kaynakça

• 1. Peterson’s Principles of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-91920-7.
• 2. Çakarer, S. & Soluk Tekkeşin, M. Çene kemiklerinin tümörleri. in Ağız diş ve çene cerrahisi. Kanıta dayalı Tanı ve tedavi yaklaşımları (ed. Alpaslan, C.) vol. 1 335–372 (Quintessence, İstanbul, 2018).
• 3. Effiom, O. A., Ogundana, O. M., Akinshipo, A. O. & Akintoye, S. O. Ameloblastoma: current etiopathological concepts and management. Oral Dis 24, 307–316 (2018).
• 4. Palanisamy, J. C. & Jenzer, A. C. Ameloblastoma. (2025).
• 5. Nazlı, A. N., Kılınç, Y. & Çetiner, S. Kısa İmplantlar. ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi 11, 340–345 (2022).
• 6. Cullum, D. R. & Deporter, D. Minimally Invasive Dental Implant Surgery. (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).
• 7. Neugebauer, J. et al. Guideline 2016 Update on short, angulated and diameter-reduced implants. Eur Assoc Dent Implantol (2016).
• 8. Anitua, E., Piñas, L., Begoña, L. & Orive, G. Long-term retrospective evaluation of short implants in the posterior areas: clinical results after 10-12 years. J Clin Periodontol 41, 404–11(2014).
• 9. Lemos, C. A. A., Ferro-Alves, M. L., Okamoto, R., Mendonça, M. R. & Pellizzer, E. P. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 47, 8–17 (2016).
• 10. Carini, F., Francesconi, M., Saggese, V., Monai, D. & Porcaro, G. Implant-supported rehabilitation of a patient with mandibular ameloblastoma. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 3, 21–5 (2012).
• 11. CRUZ, R. S. et al. Short implants versus longer implants with maxillary sinus lift. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Braz Oral Res 32, (2018).
• 12. Carosi, P. et al. Short implants (≤6 mm) as an alternative treatment option to maxillary sinus lift. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50, 1502–1510 (2021).
• 13. Moraschini, V. et al. Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis. Healthcare 9, 315 (2021).
• 14. Wang, M., Liu, F., Ulm, C., Shen, H. & Rausch-Fan, X. Short Implants versus Longer Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with a Post-Loading Follow-Up Duration of 5 Years. Materials 15, 4722 (2022).
• 15. Torres-Alemany, A. et al. Clinical Behavior of Short Dental Implants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med 9, 3271 (2020).
• 16. Ewers, R., Tomasetti, B. J., Morgan, V. J. & Perpetuini, A. The Use of Short and Ultrashort Implants in Atrophic Jaws. Short Implants 177–203 (2020).
• 17. Thoma, D. S. et al. Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11–15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: demographics and patient‐reported outcomes at 1 year of loading. J Clin Periodontol 42, 72–80 (2015).
• 18. Moy, P. K., Medina, D., Shetty, V. & Aghaloo, T. L. Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20, 569–77 (2005).
• 19. Jung, R. E. et al. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient‐reported outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 29, 69–77 (2018).
• 20. Torassa, D., Naldini, P., Calvo-Guirado, J. L. & Fernández-Bodereau, E. Prospective, Clinical Pilot Study with Eleven 4-Mm Extra-Short Implants Splinted to Longer Implants for Posterior Maxilla Rehabilitation. J Clin Med 9, 357 (2020).
• 21. Han, J., Tang, Z., Zhang, X. & Meng, H. A prospective, multi-center study assessing early loading with short implants in posterior regions. A 3-year post-loading follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 20, 34–42 (2018).
• 22. Adánez, M. H., Brezavšček, M., Vach, K., Fonseca, M. & Att, W. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Short Implants Placed in the Posterior Mandible: A 1-Year Pilot Split-Mouth Study. Journal of Oral Implantology 44, 250–259 (2018).
• 23. Guarnieri, R., Di Nardo, D., Gaimari, G., Miccoli, G. & Testarelli, L. Short vs. Standard Laser Microgrooved Implants Supporting Single and Splinted Crowns: A Prospective Study with 3 Years Follow‐Up. Journal of Prosthodontics 28, (2019).
• 24. Sahrmann, P. et al. Success of 6-mm Implants with Single-Tooth Restorations. J Dent Res 95, 623–628 (2016).
• 25. Hadzik, J. et al. The Influence of the Crown-Implant Ratio on the Crestal Bone Level and Implant Secondary Stability: 36-Month Clinical Study. Biomed Res Int 2018, 1–7 (2018).
• 26. Mangano, F. G. et al. Short (8‐mm) locking‐taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: a prospective clinical study with 1‐to 10‐years of follow‐up. Clin Oral Implants Res 25, 933–940 (2014).
• 27. Malchiodi, L. et al. Influence of crown–implant ratio on implant success rate of ultra-short dental implants: results of a 8- to 10-year retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig 24, 3213–3222 (2020).