COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT THREAD DEPTHS OF SHORT IMPLANTS IN REHABILITATION OF ATROPHIC POSTERIOR MAXILLA
Main Article Content
Keywords
short, implant, maxilla, atrophy, osseointegration, thread
Abstract
Aim: the current study aimed to assess the performance of deep-threaded and conventional-threaded short implant in the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxillary region.
Methods: This randomized controlled clinical trial included 14 patients (6 males and 8 females, ages 37-60) recruited from Al-Azhar University who required implants in posterior maxillary region with residual bone height of 6-8 mm. Clinical assessments and CBCT imaging were used during the preoperative evaluation to determine bone height and density. Implants were inserted under local anesthetic, and osteotomies were made with OXY KIT drills. Osstell ISQ was used to assess the implant stability from the buccal and mesial directions. Clinical and radiographic evaluations, including CBCT imaging for crestal bone loss and bone density were carried out immediately and after six months.
Results: The study findings revealed non-significant differences in both age and gender distributions between the groups. There were no incidences of infection or implant failure documented, indicating a 100% success rate. Group II (deep-threaded implants) had significantly higher primary stability and periimplant bone density immediately after surgery than Group I, although secondary stability at six months was comparable between the two groups. Both groups showed considerable improvements in bone density over time, with Group II maintained higher levels.
Conclusion: Deep-threaded short implants offer superior primary stability and peri-implant bone density, while both implant types achieved similar secondary stability and improved bone density over time, making deep-threaded implants ideal for atrophic posterior maxilla challenging cases.
References
2. Hamed S, Shaaban A, El-Dibany R. the Effect of Deep Threads on the Stability of Dental Implants in Posterior Maxilla. Alexandria Dent J. 2020;0(0):0-0. doi:10.21608/adjalexu.2020.88440
3. Schincaglia G Pietro, Thoma DS, Haas R, et al. Randomized controlled multicenter study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 2: clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year of loading. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(11):1042-1051. doi:10.1111/jcpe.12465
4. Levi I, Halperin-Sternfeld M, Horwitz J, Zigdon-Giladi H, Machtei EE. Dimensional changes of the maxillary sinus following tooth extraction in the posterior maxilla with and without socket preservation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(5):952-958. doi:10.1111/cid.12521
5. Monteiro DR, Silva EVF, Pellizzer EP, Filho OM, Goiato MC. Posterior partially edentulous jaws, planning a rehabilitation with dental implants. World J Clin cases. 2015;3(1):65-76. doi:10.12998/wjcc.v3.i1.65
6. Torres-Alemany A, Fernández-Estevan L, Agustín-Panadero R, Montiel-Company JM, Labaig-Rueda C, Mañes-Ferrer JF. Clinical Behavior of Short Dental Implants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(10). doi:10.3390/jcm9103271
7. Shah FA, Thomsen P, Palmquist A. Osseointegration and current interpretations of the bone-implant interface. Acta Biomater. 2019;84:1-15. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.018
8. Nisand D, Picard N, Rocchietta I. Short implants compared to implants in vertically augmented bone: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26 Suppl 1:170-179. doi:10.1111/clr.12632
9. Esfahrood ZR, Ahmadi L, Karami E, Asghari S. Short dental implants in the posterior maxilla: a review of the literature. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;43(2):70-76. doi:10.5125/jkaoms.2017.43.2.70
10. Weerapong K, Sirimongkolwattana S, Sastraruji T, Khongkhunthian P. Comparative study of immediate loading on short dental implants and conventional dental implants in the posterior mandible: A randomized clinical trial. Int J oral \& Maxillofac Implant. 2019;34 1:141–149. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54486078.
11. Bechara S, Nim\vcenko TN, Kubilius R. The efficacy of short (6 mm) dental implants with a novel thread design. Stomatologija. 2017;19 2:55-63. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4695999.
12. Chun H, Cheong S, Han J, Heo S, Chung J RI. Evaluation of design parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:565-574.
13. Muktadar AK, Gangaiah M, Chrcanovic BR, Chowdhary R. Evaluation of the effect of self‐cutting and nonself‐cutting thread designed implant with different thread depth on variable insertion torques: An histomorphometric analysis in rabbits. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20:507–514. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4895720.
14. Baiomy AABA, El-Sayed AK, Gawish A, Elsayed SA. Clinical and radiological comparison of a dynamic implant valve vs a hydraulic maxillary sinus lift augmentation technique with simultaneous implant insertion. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2022;6(S4):10605-10617.
15. Abdel Rahim NS, El Sayed SAH. Effect of Two Different Mini - Implant Lengths on Supporting Structures of Mandibular Overdentures. Ain Shams Dent J. 2014;17(2):1-5. doi:10.12816/0032603
16. Lee S-Y, Kim S-J, An H-W, et al. The effect of the thread depth on the mechanical properties of the dental implant. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7:115-121. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7271535.
17. Sun S, Lee D-W, Yun J-H, Park K-H, Park K-B, Moon I-S. Effects of Thread Depth in the Neck Area on Peri-Implant Hard and Soft Tissues: An Animal Study. J Periodontol. 2016;87 11:1360-1368. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:817906.
18. Pieri F, Caselli E, Forlivesi C, Corinaldesi G. Rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla using splinted short implants or sinus augmentation with standard-length implants: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2016;31(5):1179-1188. doi:10.11607/jomi.4370
19. Harby GA, Ghamrawy SH El, Aly TM. CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF THE OSSEOINTEGRATION, BONE LEVEL, BONE DENSITY AROUND SHORT DENTAL IMPLANTS IN POSTERIOR ATROPHIC MAXILLA. In: ; 2016. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12089665.
20. Lemos CAA, Ferro-Alves ML, Okamoto R, Mendonça MR, Pellizzer EP. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;47:8-17. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:24156038.
21. Gehrke SA, Marin GW. Biomechanical evaluation of dental implants with three different designs: Removal torque and resonance frequency analysis in rabbits. Ann Anat = Anat Anzeiger Off organ Anat Gesellschaft. 2015;199:30-35. doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2014.07.009
22. Sabeva E, Peev S, Miteva M, Georgieva M. The impact of the thread design compared to the impact of the surface topography on the primary stability of implants inserted into fresh pig ribs. Scr Sci Med Dent. 2017;3(1):60. doi:10.14748/ssmd.v3i1.2917
23. McCullough JJ, Klokkevold PR. The effect of implant macro-thread design on implant stability in the early post-operative period: a randomized, controlled pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(10):1218-1226. doi:10.1111/clr.12945.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Ibraheem Mahmoud Mwafey
Associate Professor of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Oral Diagnosis and Dental Radiology Faculty of Dentistry, Al-Azhar University (Assiut Branch), Egypt.
Ahmed Mohammed Saaduddin Sapri
Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University
Ahmed Abdelmohsen Younis Ahmed Ali
Lecturer of oral and Maxillofacial Surgery , Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University