Performance of Immediately Loaded Short Implants Using Low-Speed Drilling Protocol and Plasma Rich in Growth Factors: A Controlled Retrospective Observational Study.

Short dental implants are an alternative to surgical bone augmentation procedures and the placement of longer implants. The high predictability of short implants has encouraged clinicians to load them immediately. However, there are few studies assessing the influence of immediate vs delayed loading of short (< 8 mm) implants. The purpose of this retrospective study was to report the mid-term (5-year) outcomes (survival and marginal bone loss [MBL]) of immediate vs delayed loading of short implants. A total of 44 patients with 149 short implants fulfilled the inclusion criteria (95 and 54 implants with delayed and immediate loading, respectively). During the follow-up period, descriptive clinical variables, implant survival, MBL, and prosthetic complications were recorded and statistically analyzed. The mean follow-up time was 60 ± 40 months. The overall cumulative implant survival was 95.6%, and MBL was -0.1 ± 0.7 mm. No statistically significant differences were detected between the immediate and delayed loading groups in terms of implant survival (92.6% vs 97.5%) or MBL (-0.2 ± 0.8 mm vs -0.1 ± 0.7 mm), respectively. According to the results of this study, the immediate loading of short implants demonstrated predictability at the mid-term followup time. These results must be confirmed in future prospective studies. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2023;43:233-239. doi: 10.11607/prd.5203.

Dental Implants Survival After Nasal Floor Elevation: A Systematic Review.

The aim of this work is to assess the clinical outcomes of implants placed after a nasal floor elevation procedure. A systematic review was conducted using 4 electronic databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Directory of Open Access Journals, and Scopus, following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews) statement recommendations to answer the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) question: "In patients undergoing dental implant placement in the maxillary anterior region (P), Do implants placed after nasal floor elevation (I) have a different survival (O) from those implants placed without grafting procedures (C)? The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021229479). Included article quality was assessed using the "NIH quality assessment tool", "The Newcastle-Ottawa scale," and "JBI critical appraisal tools for case reports." Twelve articles were finally selected, including 151 patients and 460 implants. The weighted mean follow-up was 32.2 months, and the weighted survival rate after this period was 97.64% (range: 89.2%-100%). No statistical differences could be inferred between the treatments performed in 1- or 2-stage, following a lateral approach or a transcrestal approach or using different grafting materials. A great heterogeneity was found in study design and methodological aspects. For this reason, a quantitative analysis followed by meta-analysis was not possible. Within the limitations of this study, implants placed after a nasal floor elevation present a good survival and a low range of complications. In absence of randomized studies, the level of evidence was low, attending the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) system and based on the study quality level, the strength of evidence attending the SORT (Strength Of Recommendation Taxonomy) was B.

Long-Term Retrospective Study of 3.0-mm-Diameter Implants Supporting Fixed Multiple Prostheses: Immediate Versus Delayed Implant Loading.

PURPOSE: Narrow dental implants are commonly used to restore narrow alveolar ridges. Although the good performance of narrow dental implants supporting multiple prostheses has been repeatedly demonstrated, there are few studies analyzing their performance in a long-term follow-up together with the influence of the loading protocol. Thus, the objective was to assess the influence of implant loading protocol (immediate vs delayed) on the long-term outcomes of 3.0-mm-diameter dental implants supporting fixed multiple prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 202 3.0-mm-diameter dental implants supporting multiple prostheses placed between January 2006 and April 2009. Immediate loading was performed when the implants were inserted in bone types I, II, and III and achieved an insertion torque ≥ 25 Ncm; otherwise, delayed loading was performed. The survival of the dental implants was recorded together with clinical and demographic information of the participants. The prosthetic complications (ceramic chipping, screw loosening, screw fracture, decementation, prosthesis failure) were also recorded. The marginal bone loss since insertion and the marginal bone loss since loading were calculated. RESULTS: Delayed implant loading was performed in 131 implants and immediate loading in 71 implants. The follow-up time was 106 ± 40 months and 117 ± 38 months in the delayed and immediately loaded implants, respectively. The implant loading protocol (delayed vs immediate) showed no influence on the implant survival rate (96.2% vs 97.2%) and the marginal bone loss since insertion (1.2 ± 1.0 mm vs 1.2 ± 1.0 mm). CONCLUSION: The implant loading protocol (immediate vs delayed) did not influence the long-term outcomes (survival and marginal bone loss) of 3.0-mm-diameter dental implants supporting fixed multiple prostheses. These results are in favor of considering immediately loaded narrow dental implants as a viable treatment alternative for horizontally resorbed ridges. Nevertheless, future randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these observations.