PMID- 28095521 OWN - Quintessence Publishing Company, Ltd. CI - Copyright Quintessence Publishing Company, Ltd. OCI - Copyright Quintessence Publishing Company, Ltd. TA - Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants JT - The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants IS - 1942-4434 (Electronic) IS - 0882-2786 (Print) IP - 1 VI - 32 PST - ppublish DP - 2017 PG - 171-179 LA - en TI - Evaluation of Ultrashort and Longer Implants with Microrough Surfaces: Results of a 24- to 36-Month Prospective Study LID - 10.11607/jomi.4648 [doi] FAU - Malchiodi, Luciano AU - Malchiodi L FAU - Caricasulo, Riccardo AU - Caricasulo R FAU - Cucchi, Alessandro AU - Cucchi A FAU - Vinci, Raffaele AU - Vinci R FAU - Agliardi, Enrico AU - Agliardi E FAU - Gherlone, Enrico AU - Gherlone E CN - OT - crown-implant ratio OT - implant length OT - implant success rate OT - prospective study OT - ultrashort implants AB - Purpose: The aim of this prospective study was to establish if ultrashort implants are a reliable therapeutic solution by evaluating their effect on mean crestal bone loss and assessing their survival and success rates. Materials and Methods: Patients were treated using 6-, 9-, and 11-mm-long implants with sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces and fitted with fixed partial prostheses. Clinical and radiographic examinations were scheduled yearly. Data collected included the implant positioning site, implant length and diameter, peri-implant bone loss (PBL), and clinical and anatomical C/I ratios. Results: One hundred eleven implants (6-mm-long, 30.6%) were positioned; two implants were lost before loading. During the 36-month followup, no other implants were lost (98.2% survival rate, 100% from loading), but four implants did not meet the criteria for success, due to excessive crestal bone loss, resulting in a 94.6% success rate, 96.3% from loading. Success rates and peri-implant bone loss were not significantly different among implants with different lengths. No correlation was observed between implant length and bone resorption. Conclusion: Six-millimeter-long implants did not show different results in comparison with 9- and 11-mm-long implants. They can be considered a reliable solution for implant prosthetic rehabilitation and a dependable and minimally invasive therapeutic option in areas showing severe bone resorption. AID - 846900