The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine survival and peri-implant marginal bone loss of short and ultra-short implants placed in the posterior mandible. A total of 98 patients received 201 locking-taper implants between January 2014 and January 2015. Implants were placed with a 2-stage approach and restored with single crowns. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 3-year recall appointments. At that time, the proportion of implant survival by length, and variations of crestal bone levels (mean crestal bone loss and mean apical shift of the “first bone-to-implant contact point” position) were assessed. Significance level was set at 0.05. The total number of implants examined 36 months after loading included: 71 implants, 8.0 mm in length; 82 implants, 6.0 mm in length; and 48 implants, 5.0 mm in length. Five implants failed. The overall proportion of survival was 97.51%, with 98.59% for the 8.0-mm implants, 97.56% for the 6.0-mm implants, and 95.83% for the 5.0-mm implants. No statistically significant differences were found among the groups regarding implant survival (P = .73), mean crestal bone loss (P = .31), or mean apical shift of the “first bone-to-implant contact point” position (P = .36). Single-crown short and ultra-short implants may offer predictable outcomes in the atrophic posterior mandibular regions, though further investigations with longer follow-up evaluations are necessary to validate our results.

The use of dental implants has been widely accepted in the treatment of partially and totally edentulous patients. Post-extraction bone remodeling usually leads to height and thickness reductions, which in turn represent important limits to implantology procedures.13  Important anatomical structures, such as the inferior alveolar nerve and maxillary sinus, are thus frequently exposed to increased risk of damage.4,5 

The rehabilitation of posterior maxillary and mandibular extreme atrophies require sufficient residual bone levels; therefore, they often necessitate major surgical procedures, such as zygomatic implants, onlay block grafts, elevation of the maxillary sinus, lateralization of the inferior alveolar nerve, and osteodistraction.613  These solutions, however, increase patient morbidity and the chance of intra- and post-operative complications.5,6 

As an alternative and minimally invasive treatment option, the use of short implants was suggested.4,14  The classification of short implants in scientific literature has evolved over time. The recent European Consensus Conference15  on short, angulated, and diameter-reduced implants has defined standard implants as those >8.0 mm in length and ≥3.75 mm in diameter, short implants as those with ≤8.0 mm in length and ≥3.75 mm in diameter, and ultra-short implants as those ≤5.0 mm in length.

Short implants, compared to conventional implants, were historically associated with lower proportion of survival and success, and usually related to unpredictable long-term outcomes.1619  Nevertheless, recent scientific evidence pointed out their design and surface improvements, suggesting similar implant survival and success for short and for standard implants (>8 mm).14 

The majority of the authors focus primarily on the clinical outcomes of standard and short implants,2023  whereas documentary proof for ultra-short implants in the posterior jaw is less consistent, leaving incomplete recommendations at this time for their clinical usage.24 

Furthermore, restorative variables are rarely considered in the analysis of implant survival and success of short and ultrashort implants.5,25  More specifically, available studies often report the outcomes of prosthetic rehabilitations based upon differing prosthetic variables types, such as single crowns, fixed partial dentures and overdentures.26  In so doing, the comparative interpretation of the results becomes difficult, like comparing apples to oranges.

That said, several studies24,25,2729  on short and ultrashort implants report that fixed partial prostheses are preferred in cases of reduced implant length and in cases of large reverse crown-to-implant ratios. The opinions expressed are due to concerns over the potential for screw loosening, screw fracture, or implant fracture. However, in terms of better oral hygiene access and framework passivity,25  individual restorations continue to represent a gold standard.

Peri-implant marginal bone loss is considered a crucial factor for long-term implant success and stability of osseointegration.30  Despite the discrepancies between authors about the definition of success criteria,3134  a marginal bone loss not more than 2.0 mm after two years of loading is generally accepted as consistent with implant health.3537 

We hypothesized that short and ultra-short locking-taper implants, restored with single crowns in the atrophic posterior mandible, can constitute a successful therapy considering a short-term follow-up.

Thus, this 3-year retrospective study aimed to analyze implant survival and peri-implant marginal bone loss between 5.0 mm, 6.0 mm, and 8.0 mm-length locking-taper implants placed in the edentulous posterior mandible and restored with single crowns.

Study design and inclusion criteria

All patients referred to the University Dental Clinic between January 2014 and January 2015 were treated with implant-supported single-crowns for edentulism (tooth loss caused by trauma, caries, or periodontal disease) in the posterior mandible. A retrospective study was conducted between May and July 2018 with a 36-month follow-up.

Patients recruited for the study met the following inclusion criteria: aged between 18 and 90 years old; treated with less than 10 mm of alveolar bone height available above the inferior alveolar nerve in the partially edentulous mandible; received at least one 8.0-mm, 6.0-mm, or 5.00-mm locking-taper dental implant supporting a single crown; and had no preoperative consent for bone augmentation procedures.

Patients recruited for the study met the following exclusion criteria: insufficient oral hygiene; heavy smoking (>20 cigarettes/day); uncontrolled diabetes mellitus; pregnancy; radiotherapy to head or neck within 2 years prior to treatment; recent history of chemotherapy; American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification status IV or V; severe autoimmune diseases; metabolic bone disorders, or a history of intravenous bisphosphonate therapy.

The study was approved by the University Institutional Review Board (Prot. 30479, IMPCONOMAND, 17/05/18). The nature and aim of the study, together with the anonymity in the scientific use of data, were clearly explained in a written, informative consent form, which was signed by every patient. All procedures accorded with Helsinki Declaration and good clinical practice guidelines for research on human beings.

Surgical protocol

The locking-taper (Morse taper or Morse cone) dental implant system (Bicon Dental Implants, Boston, Mass; designed in 1985) used in this study (Figure 1) presents an implant interface connection to its restoration, which is impervious to bacterial penetration or infiltration.38  The implant system also includes a convergent crest module, platform switching, plateau root-form design, and an Integra CP surface (hydroxyapatite treated and acid-etched).

Figure 1.

Schematic drawing of Bicon dental implant system and its macro-geometric features. (1) Root-plateau form implant body; (2) abutment; (3) 1.5° internal connection (locking-taper); (4) convergent crest module (sloping shoulder); (5) implant plateau.

Figure 1.

Schematic drawing of Bicon dental implant system and its macro-geometric features. (1) Root-plateau form implant body; (2) abutment; (3) 1.5° internal connection (locking-taper); (4) convergent crest module (sloping shoulder); (5) implant plateau.

Close modal

All treatments and visits were carried out by a single clinician. A complete clinical and radiographic evaluation (dental and periodontal status; panoramic and periapical radiograph, computerized tomography scan) and periodontal basic treatment were performed before implant placement; if needed, surgical templates were fabricated; amoxicillin plus clavulanate (Augmentin, GlaxoSmithKline, Verona, Italy) was prescribed 1 hour before surgery to prevent infections.

For anesthesia, which was local and infiltrative, 2% xylocaine (Dentsply Pharmaceutical, York, Pa) was used. A full-thickness flap was performed, and a high-speed 2.0 mm-diameter pilot drill (with a cutting edge at the apical portion and drilling at 1100 rpm) with external saline irrigation was used to perforate the cortical plate. Final pilot drilling length was determined by measuring residual bone height and adding at least 1.0 mm to the selected implant length to allow for a subcrestal implant placement. Latch reamers presenting a 0.5-mm progressive increase in diameter were used at 50 rpm without external irrigation to widen the osteotomy until the final implant diameter was reached. The selected implant was manually inserted into the osteotomy, a healing plug was placed in the implant well, and the autogenous bone collected from the slow speed drilling process was used to fill the gap between the implant and the bony walls. The incisions were closed by single polyglycolic acid sutures (Vicril, ACE Surgical Supply Co, Brockton, Mass).

A post-operative periapical radiograph was taken, and the patient received instructions along with antibiotic and analgesic prescriptions.

Prosthetic protocol and follow-up evaluation

After 4 to 6 months, the implants were uncovered, and healing abutments were placed. After 3 weeks of soft tissue healing, definitive impressions were taken using a polyether material (3M ESPE Impregum Impression Material). Definitive single-crown porcelain or composite restorations were delivered within 2 weeks. The choice for restorative materials (porcelain or composite) was based on patients' preference, guided by personal economic resources in most of the cases. The technique used for the restorations was the integrated abutment crown, in which the abutment and the crown material are extra-orally chemo-mechanically bonded; therefore, there is no need for cement, and the implant and implant-abutment are connected with a screwless locking-taper connection.39 

Recall appointments were established to manage prosthetic complications as needed. A maintenance program was designed to provide patients a professional oral hygiene session every 4 months.

Clinical assessment of peri-implant soft tissues and radiographic examinations were performed after 3 years of follow-up from loading time.

By way of illustration, Figures 27 report some radiographic cases.

Figure 2–4.

Figure 2. 3 implants (4.0 × 5.0 mm, 4.0 × 5.0 mm, and 4.0 × 5.0 mm) placed in #21, #19, and #18 sites. (a) Pre-operative radiograph before implant placement. (b) Cone beam computerized tomography obtained before implant placement. Figure 3. 3 implants (4.0 × 5.0 mm, 4.0 × 5.0 mm, and 4.0 × 5.0 mm) placed in #21, #19, and #18 sites. (a) X ray obtained at loading time; (b) X ray obtained at 3-year follow-up. Figure 4. Three implants (4.0 × 5.0 mm, 4.0 × 5.0 mm, and 4.0 × 5.0 mm) placed in #21, #19, and #18 sites. Cone beam computerized tomography obtained at 3-year follow-up.

Figure 2–4.

Figure 2. 3 implants (4.0 × 5.0 mm, 4.0 × 5.0 mm, and 4.0 × 5.0 mm) placed in #21, #19, and #18 sites. (a) Pre-operative radiograph before implant placement. (b) Cone beam computerized tomography obtained before implant placement. Figure 3. 3 implants (4.0 × 5.0 mm, 4.0 × 5.0 mm, and 4.0 × 5.0 mm) placed in #21, #19, and #18 sites. (a) X ray obtained at loading time; (b) X ray obtained at 3-year follow-up. Figure 4. Three implants (4.0 × 5.0 mm, 4.0 × 5.0 mm, and 4.0 × 5.0 mm) placed in #21, #19, and #18 sites. Cone beam computerized tomography obtained at 3-year follow-up.

Close modal
Figures 5–7.

Figure 5. Three implants (4.0 × 5.0 mm, 4.5 × 6.0 mm, and 4.5 × 6.0 mm) placed in #20, #19, and #18 sites. (a) Pre-operative radiograph before implant placement. (b) X ray obtained at loading time. (c) X ray obtained at 3-year follow-up. Figure 6. One implant (5.0 × 6.0 mm) placed in #19 site. (a) Pre-operative radiograph before implant placement. (b) X ray obtained at loading time. (c) X ray obtained at 3-year follow-up. Figure 7. One implant (5.0 × 8.0 mm) placed in #30 site. (a) Pre-operative radiograph before implant placement. (b) X ray obtained at loading time. (c) X ray obtained at 3-year follow-up.

Figures 5–7.

Figure 5. Three implants (4.0 × 5.0 mm, 4.5 × 6.0 mm, and 4.5 × 6.0 mm) placed in #20, #19, and #18 sites. (a) Pre-operative radiograph before implant placement. (b) X ray obtained at loading time. (c) X ray obtained at 3-year follow-up. Figure 6. One implant (5.0 × 6.0 mm) placed in #19 site. (a) Pre-operative radiograph before implant placement. (b) X ray obtained at loading time. (c) X ray obtained at 3-year follow-up. Figure 7. One implant (5.0 × 8.0 mm) placed in #30 site. (a) Pre-operative radiograph before implant placement. (b) X ray obtained at loading time. (c) X ray obtained at 3-year follow-up.

Close modal

Study variables and outcomes

Implant lengths considered in this study were 8.0 mm, 6.0 mm, and 5.0 mm; implant diameters were 4.0 mm, 4.5 mm, 5.0 mm, and 6.0 mm.

Covariates included: sex, age, smoking history, history of periodontal disease, ASA status, number of oral hygiene sessions per year, tooth site, prosthetic material, and crown-to-implant ratio (CIR).

The main outcome was implant survival1,20,40  after 3 years of follow-up. Implant failure was considered as the need for implant removal either before loading (due to no osseointegration) or after loading (due to excessive bone loss). Implant survival was considered as the implant's state of being in function at the 3-year follow-up evaluation.

Secondary outcomes included crestal bone level variations, that is, a descriptive analysis of crestal bone level (CBL, average bone level around implants at mesial and distal sides, in mm) and first bone-to-implant contact (F-BIC, in mm),4143  along with their variations ΔCBL (average bone loss) and ΔF-BIC (average apical shift of the “first bone-to-implant contact point” position). These values were determined based on changes that took place between loading time (t0, considered as baseline time) and the 3-year follow-up time (t1), according to covariates.

Peri-implant bone levels were measured through digitally scanned intraoral radiographs, performed with parallel technique44  using Rinn centering devices (Rinn XCP Posterior Aiming Ring-Yellow, Dentsply, Elgin, Ill), immediately after implant placement, at healing abutment placement, at prosthetic loading, and after 3 years of loading. The implant-abutment interface (IAI) was taken as a reference for measurements.

CBL was measured on mesial and distal sides as the linear distance between the IAI and the highest point of the interproximal bone crest parallel to the lateral sides of the implant body. A positive value was given when the crest was located coronally to the IAI, and a negative value was given when the crest was located apically to the IAI. For every implant, an average mesial-distal value was calculated at each examination interval.

F-BIC was defined as the first most coronal bone-to-implant relationship visible at the first line of contact, on both mesial and distal sides; if F-BIC matched with IAI, the measurement was 0; if it was located apically, the measurement was a positive value.

As described in the literature,45  implants were divided into 2 groups on the basis of presenting a CIR less than or greater than 2. The crown height was measured on the radiograph immediately after the prosthetic loading, from the most occlusal point to the IAI. Anatomical crown-to-implant ratio45  (in which the fulcrum is positioned at the interface between the implant shoulder and the crown-abutment complex) was calculated by dividing the digital length of the crown by the digital length of the implant.

Measurements (Figure 8) were assessed with the aid of a software program (Rasband, W.S., ImageJ, US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md) which uses a measuring tool in conjunction with a magnification tool. To correct the distortion of the radiographic image, the apparent size of each implant (measured directly on the radiograph) was compared with the actual length of the implant, to determine with adequate precision the amount of change in the crestal bone around each implant. The measurements were made to the nearest 0.01 mm.

Figure 8.

Schematic example of the references for peri-implant bone levels measurements. (1) Implant-abutment interface; (2) most occlusal point line; (3) crestal bone level (CBL) on the mesial side; (4) CBL on the distal side; (5) first bone-to-implant contact (F-BIC) on the mesial side; (6) F-BIC on the distal side; (7) crown length; (8) implant length.

Figure 8.

Schematic example of the references for peri-implant bone levels measurements. (1) Implant-abutment interface; (2) most occlusal point line; (3) crestal bone level (CBL) on the mesial side; (4) CBL on the distal side; (5) first bone-to-implant contact (F-BIC) on the mesial side; (6) F-BIC on the distal side; (7) crown length; (8) implant length.

Close modal

One dentist, who was not involved in the treatment of the patients, completed all the measurements on periapical radiographs; the observation intervals of the radiographs were masked to the examiner. Before the start of the study, this investigator was calibrated for intra-examiner adequate levels of accuracy and reproducibility in recording the radiographic parameters. Three radiographs were used for this purpose: duplicate measurements for CBL, F-BIC, and CIR were collected with an interval of 24 hours between the first and second recording. The intra-class correlation coefficients, used as a measure of intra-examiner reproducibility, had to be greater than 0.8.

Statistical analysis

For data collection, a database including all patients evaluated in the study was created with Microsoft Excel. All data analysis was carried out using Stata v.13.0 for Macintosh (StataCorp, College Station, Tx).46 

The normality assumptions for continuous data were assessed by using the Shapiro-Wilk test; mean and standard deviation were reported for normally distributed data, median, and interquartile range (iqr) otherwise. For categorical data, absolute frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals were reported. The association between categorical variables was tested with χ2 test; if any of the expected values was less than 5, a Fisher's exact test was performed. The comparison between the means of continuous variables in two different times was performed by using paired Student t test or Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. The comparison between the means of 2 different groups was performed using unpaired Student t or Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The comparison of the means among more than 2 groups was done using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test. Significance level was set at 0.05. The methodology was reviewed by an independent statistician.

A total of 98 patients (43 men and 55 women) were identified for the retrospective study according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Mean age at placement was 54.07 ± 10.67 years old (range: 32–77). In all, 79.6% of the patients were non-smokers, 50% presented an ASA status I, and 65.28% reported a history of periodontal disease. Patients were compliant with the maintenance program, following a mean of 3.85 ± 1.17 oral professional hygiene sessions in a year.

A total of 71 implants (35.32%) were 8.0 mm in length, 82 (40.8%) were 6.0 mm in length, and 48 (23.88%) were 5.0 mm in length. Implant diameters were 4.0 mm (33.83%), 4.5 mm (32.83%), 5.0 mm (26.37%), and 6.0 mm (6.97%). Most of the implants were placed in the molar area, predominantly in #19 and #30 sites (22.39% and 21.89%, respectively).

All the implants were restored with single crowns: 180 porcelain crowns and 21 resin crowns. Mean CIR was 1.96 ± 0.63 (range: 0.92–3.81): 1.42 ± 0.32 (range: 0.92–3.07), 1.99 ± 0.4 (range: 1.09–2.8) and 2.71 ± 0.47 (range: 1.81–3.81) for implants that are 8.0 mm, 6.0 mm, and 5.0 mm in length, respectively. A CIR > 2 prevalence was estimated in 42.78% of the implants, with significant differences (P < .001) among length groups (2.81%, 46.34%, and 95.83% for implants 8.0 mm, 6.0 mm, and 5.0 mm in length, respectively).

The implants' distribution was analyzed according to length definition (8.0 mm, 6.0 mm, and 5.0 mm). The overall descriptive statistics for the study variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Overall placed implants: length-group distribution according to study variables*†

Overall placed implants: length-group distribution according to study variables*†
Overall placed implants: length-group distribution according to study variables*†

Implant survival

At the uncovering stage, all the implants were osseointegrated, and no early failures were detected. Five implants were lost after functional loading (late failures due to excessive bone loss), in 5 different patients, all with a history of periodontal disease. One failure occurred in a 4.0 × 8.0 mm implant, two in 4.5 × 6.0 mm implants, and two in 5.0 × 5.0 mm implants. The failed implants' features are recorded in Table 2.

Table 2

Failure features*

Failure features*
Failure features*

The overall proportion of implant survival at the 36-month follow-up was 97.51% (95% CI: 0.94–0.98), with no statistically significant differences (P = .73) between length groups: 98.59% (70/71), 97.56% (80/82), and 95.83% (46/48) for implants 8.0 mm, 6.0 mm, and 5.0 mm in length, respectively. No association was found between survival and failure groups, nor in any of the considered covariates (Table 3).

Table 3

Analysis of implant survival according to included study covariates*†

Analysis of implant survival according to included study covariates*†
Analysis of implant survival according to included study covariates*†

Crestal bone levels and peri-implant bone loss

Mean CBL at loading (t0) was 1.89 ± 1.29 mm (range -2.45; 5.59); mean CBL at follow-up (t1) was 1.32 ± 1.31 mm (range −3.59; 4.68). Mean ΔCBL was -0.4 ± 0.95 mm.

Mean F-BIC at loading (t0) was 0.32 ± 0.72 mm (range 0; 3); mean F-BIC at follow-up (t1) was 0.49 ± 0.72 mm (range 0; 4.13). Mean ΔF-BIC was 0.1 ± 0.62 mm.

ΔCBL and ΔF-BIC (Tables 4 and 5) were compared by one-way non-parametric ANOVA with each covariate as a between-patients factor. A statistically greater crestal bone loss (ΔCBL) for implants placed in premolar sites compared with those placed in molar sites was evident; there was also a statistically greater apical shift of the F-BIC (ΔF-BIC) for implants restored with resin crowns and for implants placed in patients with a history of periodontal disease. Crestal bone-level variations were not statistically different between length groups at the 3-year follow-up evaluation (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4

Crestal bone level (CBL) distribution and analysis of average bone loss (ΔCBL) according to included study covariates*†

Crestal bone level (CBL) distribution and analysis of average bone loss (ΔCBL) according to included study covariates*†
Crestal bone level (CBL) distribution and analysis of average bone loss (ΔCBL) according to included study covariates*†
Table 5

First bone-to-implant contact (F-BIC) distribution and analysis of average apical shift of the F-BIC position (ΔF-BIC) according to included study covariates*†

First bone-to-implant contact (F-BIC) distribution and analysis of average apical shift of the F-BIC position (ΔF-BIC) according to included study covariates*†
First bone-to-implant contact (F-BIC) distribution and analysis of average apical shift of the F-BIC position (ΔF-BIC) according to included study covariates*†

Short implants were historically associated with a lower proportion of survival and unpredictable long-term outcomes.10,11,16,19  Nevertheless, scientific evidence of the last decade has suggested similar implant survival for short and standard implants,47  and proposed the use of short implants as a valid alternative to bone augmentation procedures, as well as the use of longer implants in sites characterized by compromised ridges.48,49  Furthermore, improvements in implant-abutment connection design and surface textures led to considerably increased survival for implants 8.0 mm in length supporting single crowns.

Fugazzotto et al,21  in a long-term retrospective study on endosseous implants less than 10 mm in length, found an implant survival of 98.4% for 315 standard-neck implants placed in the posterior mandible and restored with single crowns. Lai et al,5  in a clinical retrospective study with 5 to 10 years of follow-up on 231 implants with an intra-bony length ≤8.0 mm, supporting single crowns, and placed in the posterior regions, found an overall survival of 98.3%; the survival for 198 implants 8.0 mm in length was 98.5% and the survival for 121 implants placed in the posterior mandible was 98.3%. Urdaneta et al20  analyzed 199 implants 8.00 mm in length, mostly supporting single crowns, for an average follow-up of 20 months, and reported a survival of 95.2%. Mangano et al,1  in a prospective study with 1 to 10 years of follow-up on 91 single-crown, locking-taper implants 8.0 mm in length and placed in the posterior mandible, reported an implant survival of 98.9%.

In the present retrospective study with a 3-year follow-up, we reported a proportion of implant survival of 98.59% for 71 implants 8.0 mm in length, with non-splinted single crown restorations, and placed in the posterior mandible; therefore, our results are in agreement with data previously reported in the literature.1,5,20,21 

A meta-analysis by Srinivasan et al22  indicated that short implants 6.0 mm in length can be used as a successful treatment option in the posterior jaw. Several other authors recently endorsed the use of implants 6.0 mm in length to support single crowns in daily clinical practice. Rossi et al23  studied 40 implants 6.0 mm in length, with moderately rough surfaces, supporting single crowns, and placed in the posterior regions, and reported a survival of 95% after 2 years. Urdaneta et al20  reported a survival of 97.6% for 211 implants shorter than 8.0 mm, placed in the maxilla and mandible, and mostly supporting single-crowns, with an average follow-up of 20 months. Lai et al5  reported a survival of 97% for 33 implants 6.0 mm in length with 5 to 10 years of follow-up.

In the present study, after monitoring 82 mandibular implants 6.0 mm in length, we found a survival of 97.56% at 36 months. The data presented in this paper, together with a review of the current scientific research, seems to support the use of single-crown implants 6.0 mm in length in daily clinical practice.

Nevertheless, these assumptions must be taken cautiously, especially considering our mid-term (3 years) follow-up. In a comparison, Rossi et al50  reported an implant survival of 86.7% and 96.7% for implants 6.0 mm and 10 mm in length, respectively, supporting single-crowns with a 5-year follow-up. A recent prospective study by Naenni et al51  showed a significantly different survival: 100% and 91% for implants 10 mm and 6.0 mm in length, respectively, supporting single crowns after 5 years of loading.

In a comprehensive systematic review, Mezzomo et al26  evaluated the prognosis of implants shorter than 10 mm supporting single crowns (eg, implants 6.0 mm and 8.0 mm in length) and found no differences demonstrated. The authors claimed that evidence of long-term prognosis is still lacking. Considering a greater number of studies with longer follow-up, it was also postulated that the meta-regression analysis should have given different results, including a statistically significant different survival between implants 6.0 mm and 8.0 mm in length.

In a 3-year follow-up study by Clelland et al,25  single-crown implants were compared with contralateral splinted-crown implants. A lower survival was found for single implants 6.0 mm in length compared to those of splinted crowns. Even if splinting was demonstrated by these authors to be a positive factor for the success of short implants 6.0 mm in length, a single-crown restoration is otherwise considered the preferred prosthetic approach,45  due to its better emergence profiles and optimal acceptance by patients because of its easy maintenance with oral hygiene homecare.

Heterogeneity in the study design of different investigations discussed in the literature concerning implants 5.0 mm in length does not allow for definitive conclusions. Furthermore, RCTs on implants 5.0 mm in length supporting single crowns are currently scarce, and the majority of scientific evidence for implants 5.0 mm in length and placed in the posterior mandible concerns splinted implants.

A retrospective study of sintered porous-surfaced (SPS) implants with 1 to 8 years of follow-up 27  reported a survival of 100% for 12 ultra-short implants supporting single or fixed prostheses in the mandible. Similar survival were found in a 3-year randomized control trial 28  for splinted mandibular implants 5.0 mm in length compared to implants 10 mm in length, and in a 4-month randomized controlled trial, for splinted implants 4.0 mm in length compared to splinted implants 8.5 mm in length.29  A 5-year prospective multicenter study on splinted implants 4.0 mm in length and placed in the posterior mandible found a survival of 92.2%.24 

In our experience, 48 implants 5.0 mm in length and supporting single crowns, showed a survival of 95.83%, with no statistically significant differences when compared to implants 6.0 mm in length after 36 months.

Excessive bone loss after loading can influence implant survival. The threshold at which the clinical crown-to-implant ratios become excessive is still a controversial issue, especially regarding ultra-short implants. It has also been suggested that disproportionate prosthetic restorations with higher CIR could have a potential negative impact on mean peri-implant bone loss, and could reduce implant survival.52  A study by Schulte et al53  considered 889 locking-taper single crowns (410 in the mandible), and showed that the CIR was similar for surviving (1.3 ± 0.3) and failed (1.4 ± 2.5) implants, and that after an average of 2 years and 3 months of follow-up, there was no influence on the implant survival (98.2%). Urdaneta et al42  postulated that an increased CIR (up to 4.95) does not have a statistically significant effect on the failure rate of single-tooth locking-taper plateau-design implants, but only 13 out of the 326 assessed implants were 6.0 mm in length. Malchiodi et al,41  in a 3-year prospective study with 259 SPS splinted and single-crown implants (100 in the mandible and 159 in the maxilla), concluded that there was a statistical correlation between CIR and implant success or crestal bone loss; threshold values of 3.1 and 3.4 for anatomical and clinical CIR to avoid excessive tension on the abutment-bone interface were also suggested.

In our study, 48 locking-taper implants 5.0 mm in length showed a mean CIR of 2.71, which is comparable to the highest values found in the literature and yet, not negatively related to peri-implant bone loss. Bone levels stability (ΔCBL and ΔF-BIC) was indeed preserved after 3 years, without significant differences between implant CIR-groups (<2 and >2) and length groups.

There was a statistically greater apical shift of the F-BIC (ΔF-BIC) for implants restored with resin crowns, compared to those restored with porcelain crowns. However, there were no statistical differences between the 2 prosthetic materials as to implant survival or average bone loss (ΔCBL). Other authors5457  have also reported that they found no significant differences in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss between resin and porcelain restorations. On the other hand, one author reported that reinforced composite resin material appears to accumulate more plaque deposits than titanium resulting in at least surface mucosal inflammation of peri-implant tissues.58 

We hypothesize that there are possible confounding factors, such as a history of periodontal disease, that could have an important influence in determining this outcome, since implants placed in patients with a history of periodontal disease had a statistically increased ΔF-BIC. Moreover, this finding occurred in only one implant vs 20 implants in non-periodontal and periodontal patients, respectively.

It is also worth noting that the implant system examined in this study presents a screw-less locking-taper implant-abutment connection. Among others, the advantages of this connection include increased mechanical stability with no micromovements or micro gaps at the implant-abutment interface, thus leading to minimal bone resorption. The plateau root-form implant design provides clinical capabilities different from threaded implants of the same size, eg, a 30% greater surface area, and unique Haversian bone formation and remodeling, which provides a more effective transference of the compressive forces to the bone throughout the entire implant.59  Our results appear to be consistent with the findings of other authors who have experimented with this type of connection and implant design.20,60 

However, this study presents some critical issues consequent to its retrospective nature and the mandibular area on which it was focused. Such issues include: the small sample size, the mid-term evaluation (3 years of follow-up), and a non-homogeneous distribution among implant length-groups. Additionally, the setting of a single-center (the University Dental Clinic) could also have introduced an important bias, which indicates that our results cannot be generalized.

On the other hand, a 1-year interval (January 2014–January 2015) for patient recruitment could be a favorable point in excluding any significant variations of technique.

Most of the patients enrolled in the study were characterized by a history of periodontal disease; this was potentially a critical limitation for the study, but it was not a significant issue for implant survival. Furthermore, all patients showed a positive compliance to the maintenance program.

Despite the limitations discussed already, the main strength of our study comprises a positive assessment: 3 years after loading, a high proportion of locking-taper implants 5.0 mm in length, restored with single crowns and having a moderately disproportionate crown-to-implant ratio, survived with stable crestal bone levels.

However, for the future, a prospective long-term (5-year follow-ups or longer) approach is necessary for a better evaluation of larger homogenous samples, with possible comparisons between mandibular and maxillary areas, as well as for a more balanced distribution between patients with or without a history of periodontal disease.

Short and ultra-short single-crown locking-taper implants used in this study have been demonstrated to be a successful treatment option in the atrophic posterior mandible.

However, further long-term investigations with major homogeneity in length-group distribution, multi-center patient recruitment, and a larger sample size are needed to corroborate our results on ultra-short implants in the mandible.

Abbreviations

Abbreviations
ANOVA:

analysis of variance

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

CIR:

crown-to-implant ratio

CBL:

crestal bone level

F-BIC:

first bone-to-implant contact

ΔCBL:

average bone loss

ΔF-BIC:

average apical shift of the “first bone-to-implant contact point” position

IAI:

implant-abutment interface

iqr:

interquartile range

This paper is supported by the Department of Surgery, Dentistry, Paediatrics, and Gynaecology (DIPSCOMI), University of Verona. Statistical analysis was carried out by Miguel Simancas-Pallares. Furthermore, the authors would like to thank the independent statistician Dr. Luisa Zanolla, University of Verona, Verona, Italy, who reviewed the work.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported by the authors.

1. 
Mangano
F,
Shibli
JA,
Sammons
RL,
Iaculli
F,
Piattelli
A,
Mangano
C.
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
.
2014
;
25
:
933
940
.
2. 
Jiansheng
H,
Dongying
X,
Xianfeng
W,
Baoyi
X,
Qiong
L,
Jincai
Z.
Clinical evaluation of short and wide-diameter implants immediately placed into extraction sockets of posterior areas: a 2-year retrospective study
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2012
;
38
:
729
737
.
3. 
Taschieri
S,
Corbella
S,
Molinari
R,
Saita
M,
Del Fabbro
M.
Short implants in maxillary and mandibular rehabilitations: interim results (6 to 42 months) of a prospective study
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2015
;
41
:
50
55
.
4. 
das Neves
FD,
Fones
D,
Bernardes
SR,
do Prado CJ, Neto AJ. Short implants–an analysis of longitudinal studies
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2006
;
21
:
86
93
.
5. 
Lai
HC,
Si
MS,
Zhuang
LF,
Shen
H,
Liu
YL,
Wismeijer
D.
Long-term outcomes of short dental implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: a clinical retrospective study of 5-10 years
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2013
;
24
:
230
237
.
6. 
Pjetursson
BE,
Tan
WC,
Zwahlen
M,
Lang
NP.
A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2008
;
35
:
216
240
.
7. 
D'Agostino
A,
Procacci
P,
Ferrari
F,
Trevisiol
L,
Nocini
PF.
Zygoma implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient after subtotal bilateral maxillectomy
.
J Craniofac Surg
.
2013
;
24
:
e159
e162
.
8. 
Nocini
PF,
D'Agostino
A,
Chiarini
L,
Trevisiol
L,
Procacci
P.
Simultaneous Le Fort I osteotomy and zygomatic implants placement with delayed prosthetic rehabilitation
.
J Craniofac Surg
.
2014
;
25
:
1021
1024
.
9. 
Boffano
P,
Forouzanfar
T.
Current concepts on complications associated with sinus augmentation procedures
.
J Craniofac Surg
.
2014
;
25
:
e210
e212
.
10. 
Lombardo
G,
D'Agostino
A,
Trevisiol
L,
et al.
Clinical, microbiologic and radiologic assessment of soft and hard tissues surrounding zygomatic implants: a retrospective study
.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol and Oral Radiol
.
2016
;
122
:
537
546
.
11. 
Nocini
PF,
Trevisiol
L,
D'Agostino
A,
Zanette
G,
Favero
V,
Procacci
P.
Quadruple zygomatic implants supported rehabilitation in failed maxillary bone reconstruction
.
Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2016
;
20
:
303
308
.
12. 
Merli
M,
Migani
M,
Esposito
M.
Vertical ridge augmentation with autogenous bone grafts: resorbable barriers supported by ostheosynthesis plates versus titanium-reinforced barriers. A preliminary report of a blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2007
;
22
:
373
382
.
13. 
Chiapasco
M,
Romeo
E,
Casentini
P,
Rimondini
L.
Alveolar distraction osteogenesis vs. vertical guided bone regeneration for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: a 1-3-year prospective study on humans
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2004
;
15
:
82
95
.
14. 
Nisand
D,
Renouard
F.
Short implant in limited bone volume
.
Periodontol 2000
.
2014
;
66
:
72
96
.
15. 
Neugebauer
J,
Nickenig
H,
Zoller
J.
Update on short, angulated a diameter-reduced implants
.
Paper presented at: 11th European Consensus Conference, European Association of Dental Implantologists, February 6,
2016
;
pp.
1
9
;
Bonn, Germany.
16. 
Bahat
O.
Branemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2000
;
15
:
646
653
.
17. 
Winkler
S,
Morris
HF,
Ochi
S.
Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter
.
Ann Periodontol
.
2000
;
5
:
22
31
.
18. 
Pierrisnard
L,
Renouard
F,
Renault
P,
Barquins
M.
Influence of implant length and bicortical anchorage on implant stress distribution
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2003
;
5
:
254
262
.
19. 
Weng
D,
Jacobson
Z,
Tarnow
D,
et al.
A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2003
;
18
:
417
423
.
20. 
Urdaneta
RA,
Daher
S,
Leary
J,
Emanuel
KM,
Chuang
SK.
The survival of ultrashort locking-taper implants
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2012
;
27
:
644
654
.
21. 
Fugazzotto
PA.
Shorter implants in clinical practice: rationale and treatment results
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2008
;
23
:
487
496
.
22. 
Srinivasan
M,
Vazquez
L,
Rieder
P,
Moraguez
O,
Bernard
JP,
Belser
UC.
Efficacy and predictability of short dental implants (<8 mm): a critical appraisal of the recent literature
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2012
;
27
:
1429
1437
.
23. 
Rossi
F,
Ricci
E,
Marchetti
C,
Lang
NP,
Botticelli
D.
Early loading of single crowns supported by 6-mm-long implants with a moderately rough surface: a prospective 2-year follow-up cohort study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2010
;
21
:
937
943
.
24. 
Slotte
C,
Grønningsaeter
A,
Halmøy
AM,
et al.
Four-millimeter-long posterior-mandible implants: 5-year outcomes of a prospective multicenter study
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2015
;
17
:
e385
e395
.
25. 
Clelland
N,
Chaudhry
J,
Rashid
RG,
McGlumphy
E.
Split-mouth comparison of splinted and nonsplinted prostheses on short implants: 3-year results
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2016
;
31
:
1135
1141
.
26. 
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
.
27. 
Deporter
D,
Ogiso
B,
Sohn
DS,
Ruljancich
K,
Pharoah
M.
Ultrashort sintered porous-surfaced dental implants used to replace posterior teeth
.
J Periodontol
.
2008
;
79
:
1280
1286
.
28. 
Esposito
M,
Pistilli
R,
Barausse
C,
Felice
P.
Three-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws
.
Eur J Oral Implantol
.
2014
;
7
:
383
395
.
29. 
Esposito
M,
Barausse
C,
Pistilli
R,
et al.
Posterior jaws rehabilitated with partial prostheses supported by 4.0x4.0 mm or by longer implants: four-month post-loading data from a randomised controlled trial
.
Eur J Oral Implantol
.
2015
;
8
:
221
230
.
30. 
Galindo-Moreno
P,
León-Cano
A,
Ortega-Oller
I,
Monje
A,
O Valle F, Catena A. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: beyond 2 mm
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2015
;
26
:
e28
e34
.
31. 
Albrektsson
T,
Zarb
G,
Worthington
P,
Eriksson
AR.
The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1986
;
1
:
11
25
.
32. 
Misch
CE,
Perel
ML,
Wang
HL,
et al.
Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference
.
Implant Dent
.
2008
;
17
:
5
15
.
33. 
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
.
34. 
Qian
J,
Wennerberg
A,
Albrektsson
T.
Reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2012
;
14
:
792
807
.
35. 
Roos-Jansaker
AM,
Lindahl
C,
Renvert
H,
Renvert
S.
Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part II: presence of peri-implant lesions
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2006
;
33
:
290
295
.
36. 
Fransson
C,
Lekholm
U,
Jemt
T,
Berglundh
T.
Prevalence of subjects with progressive bone loss at implants
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2005
;
16
:
440
446
.
37. 
Ellegaard
B,
Baelum
V,
Karring
T.
Implant therapy in periodontally compromised patients
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1997
;
8
:
180
188
.
38. 
Dibart
S,
Warbington
M,
Su
MF,
Skobe
Z.
In vitro evaluation of the implant-abutment bacterial seal: the locking taper system
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2005
;
20
:
732
737
.
39. 
Urdaneta
RA,
Marincola
M.
The integrated abutment crown, a screwless and cementless restoration for single-tooth implants: a report on a new technique
.
J Prosthodont
.
2007
;
16
:
311
318
.
40. 
Maiorana
C,
Farronato
D,
Pieroni
S,
Cicciu
M,
Andreoni
D,
Santoro
F.
A four-year survival rate multicenter prospective clinical study on 377 implants: correlations between implant insertion torque, diameter, and bone quality
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2015
;
41
:
e60
e65
.
41. 
Malchiodi
L,
Cucchi
A,
Ghensi
P,
Consonni
D,
Nocini
PF.
Influence of crown-implant ratio on implant success rates and crestal bone levels: a 36-month follow-up prospective study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2014
;
25
:
240
251
.
42. 
Urdaneta
RA,
Rodriguez
S,
McNeil
DC,
Weed
M,
Chuang
SK.
The effect of increased crown-to-implant ratio on single-tooth locking-taper implants
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2010
;
25
:
729
743
.
43. 
Birdi
H,
Schulte
J,
Kovacs
A,
Weed
M,
Chuang
SK.
Crown-to-implant ratios of short-length implants
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2010
;
36
:
425
433
.
44. 
Galgali
SR,
Gontiya
G.
Evaluation of an innovative radiographic technique-parallel profile radiography to determine the dimensions of dentogingival unit
.
Indian J Dent Res
.
2011
;
22
:
237
241
.
45. 
Blanes
RJ,
Bernard
JP,
Blanes
ZM,
Belser
UC. A
10 year prospective study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. Influence of the crown-to-implant ratio and different prosthetic treatment modalities on crestal bone loss
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2007
;
18
:
707
714
.
46. 
StataCorp
.
2017
.
Stata Statistical Software: Release 15
.
College Station, Tx
:
StataCorp LLC
.
47. 
Alqutaibi
AY,
Altaib
F.
Short dental implant is considered as a reliable treatment option for patients with atrophic posterior maxilla
.
J Evid Based Dent Pract
.
2016
;
16
:
173
175
.
48. 
Chiapasco
M,
Zaniboni
M.
Clinical outcomes of GBR procedures to correct peri-implant dehiscences and fenestrations: a systematic review
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2009
;
20
:
113
123
.
49. 
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
.
50. 
Rossi
F,
Botticelli
D,
Cesaretti
G,
De Santis
E,
Storelli
S,
Lang
NP.
Use of short implants (6 mm) in a single-tooth replacement: a 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2016
;
27
:
458
464
.
51. 
Naenni
N,
Sahrmann
P,
Schmidlin
PR,
et al.
Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomized controlled clinical trial
.
J Dent Res
.
2018
;
97
:
887
892
.
52. 
Anitua
E,
Pinas
L,
Orive
G.
Retrospective study of short and extra-short implants placed in posterior regions: influence of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone loss
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2015
;
17
:
102
110
.
53. 
Schulte
J,
Flores
AM,
Weed
M.
Crown-to-implant ratios of single tooth implant-supported restorations
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2007
;
98
:
1
5
.
54. 
Agustín-Panadero
R,
Soriano-Valero
S,
Labaig-Rueda
C,
Fernández-Estevan
L,
Solá-Ruíz
MF.
Implant-supported metal-ceramic and resin-modified ceramic crowns: a 5-year prospective clinical study
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2019
;
S0022–3913
:
30731
30735
.
55. 
Bonfante
EA,
Suzuki
M,
Lorenzoni
FC,
et al.
Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD-CAM resin nanoceramic crowns
.
Dent Mater
.
2015
;
31
:
e168
e177
.
56. 
Chochlidakis
K,
Einarsdottir
E,
Tsigarida
A,
et al.
Survival rates and prosthetic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: an up to 5-year retrospective study
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2020
;
S0022–3913
:
30761
30769
.
57. 
Ohlmann
B,
Bermejo
JL,
Rammelsberg
P,
Schmitter
M,
Zenthöfer
A,
Stober
T.
Comparison of incidence of complications and aesthetic performance for posterior metal-free polymer crowns and metal-ceramic crowns: results from a randomized clinical trial
.
J Dent
.
2014
;
42
:
671
676
.
58. 
Kanao
M,
Nakamoto
T,
Kajiwara
N,
Kondo
Y,
Masaki
C,
Hosokawa
R.
Comparison of plaque accumulation and soft-tissue blood flow with the use of full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses with mucosal surfaces of different materials: a randomized clinical study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2013
;
24
:
1137
1143
.
59. 
Coelho
PG,
Suzuki
M,
Guimaraes
MV,
et al.
Early bone healing around different implant bulk designs and surgical techniques: A study in dogs
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2010
;
12
:
202
208
.
60. 
Demiralp
KO,
Akbulut
N,
Kursun
S,
Argun
D,
Bagis
N,
Orhan
K.
Survival rate of short, locking taper implants with a plateau design: a 5-year retrospective study
.
BioMed Res Int
.
2015
;
2015
:
197451
.