International Journal of Clinical Case Reports 2016, Vol.6, No.20, 1-7
1
Case Report Open Access
Success is not about Height; Short Implants: A Case Report
Khushboo Deshmukh
1
, Ruparani Bodduru
1
, Motilal Jangid
1
, Abhishek Singh Nayyar
2
1 Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Saraswati Dhanwantari Dental College and Hospital and Post-Graduate Research Institute,
Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Saraswati Dhanwantari Dental College and Hospital and Post-Graduate Research Institute, Maharashtra, India
Corresponding author email
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports 2016, Vol.6, No.20 doi
Received: 14 May, 2016
Accepted: 23 Aug., 2016
Published: 25 Aug., 2016
Copyright © 2016 Khushboo et al., This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Preferred citation for this article:
Khushboo D., Ruparani B., Motilal J., and Abhishek S.N., 2016, Success is not about height; short implants: A Case Report, International Journal of
Clinical Case Reports, 6(20): 1-7 (doi
Abstract:
During the past decades, implant treatment has been a successful option for tooth replacement. After tooth loss, however,
severely atrophic residual alveolar ridges are quite common, especially in patients who have been edentulous for a longer period of
time. Posterior areas of the maxilla and mandible are areas of greater anatomical constraints. Lots of research and advances have
occurred in field of Oral Implantology and short dental implants are one of them. But success rates for these short dental implants
were also considered dubious. Most important factor that was to be considered was crown-implant ratio. Over the period of time and
with improvisation of implant designs, even short dental implants have provided predictable results. The purpose of this case report is
to reveal success journey of short dental implants.
Keywords
Short dental implants; Anatomic constraints; Success rate
Introduction
During the past decades, implant therapy has been a successful option for tooth replacement. After tooth loss,
however, severely atrophic residual alveolar ridges are quite common, especially in patients who have been
edentulous for a long period of time. Posterior areas of the maxilla and mandible have greater anatomical
limitations. Reduced alveolar bone height is a definite constraint to implant therapy, unless a procedure such as
ridge augmentation or sinus floor elevation is performed. These techniques imply greater morbidity, longer
treatment times and higher costs. Sinus cavity in the maxilla and inferior alveolar nerve proximity in the mandible
are the definite anatomical constraints where short dental implants may be considered as an alternative treatment
option. Short dental implants reduce surgical risk of sinus perforation and mandibular paresthesia with an overall
reduction in surgical complications. The use of short dental implants, in the posterior regions, reduces the need for
bone augmentation procedures prior to or in conjunction with implant placement in maxilla and mandible. Due to
the decreased length of the drills and implants, the osteotomy preparation implies lesser risk of overheating the
bone. In case of apical root proximity, short dental implants can be the only possible choice. In short, short dental
implants reduce treatment time, complications as well as the overall costs related to the graft procedures (Misch,
1999). All these factors make short dental implants a highly attractive restorative option. Most of the authors
consider implants with length lesser than 10mm as short implants (Deporter et al., 2005; Misch et al., 2006; Tawil
et al., 2006; Morand and Irinakis, 2007; Nisand and Renouard, 2014). Some researchers stated that short dental
implants are those with length equal or smaller than 10mm (Gentile et al., 2005). Other researchers believed that
short dental implants should have length smaller than 8mm and implants with implant length less than 5mm are to
be considered as extra-short implants (Renouard and Nisand, 2006). Again, despite being advantageous in a
plethora of clinical situations, there are several studies which state that reducing implant height is also associated
with increased implant failures. The common reasons cited for failure of short dental implants, used commonly in
maxillary and mandibular posterior areas because of severe anatomic constraints, include a higher bite force, bone
density in the region and increased crown height (Misch, 1999). Herein, we are presenting one such case wherein
short dental implants were placed in a situation with obvious anatomic constraints and they proved successful.
