Implantes dentários curtos na implantodontia moderna: revisão sistematizada

Abstract

Introdução: Os implantes curtos têm ganhado espaço na implantodontia moderna devido se tratar de uma técnica que apresenta baixa morbidade, sem necessidade de cirurgias de enxertos prévias e menor custo para o paciente, quando comparada a outras técnicas. Objetivo: Dessa forma, foi realizada uma revisão da literatura atual sobre as vantagens e indicações desta técnica comparando-a as técnicas convencionais. Materiais e métodos: A pesquisa bibliográfica foi realizada usando MEDLINE via PubMed, utilizando termos e outros termos livres dos Cabeçalhos de Assunto Médicos (MeSH) para pesquisar. Abrangendo artigos publicados em inglês, dos ultimos 18 anos. Resultados: Foram selecionados 56 referências, das quais 26 foram consideradas inadequadas. Resultando no total de 30 artigos considerados adequados aos critérios de seleção. Os artigos selecionados apresentaram em alguns pontos divergência que ainda necessitam de respostas baseadas em evidencias. Conclusão: Conclui-se com esta revisão que os implantes curtos são uma boa alternativa quando não se tem altura óssea suficiente para instalação de implantes convencionais, e que apresenta vantagens e indicações restritas no universo da implantodontia com resultados similares quando comparados aos implantes de tamanhos convencionais. Porém, apresentam resultados a curto prazo o que sugere a realização de estudos com longo tempo de acompanhamento que busquem responder sobre a qualidade da técnica nos diversos desafios encontrados na implantodontia.

Descritores: Implantes Dentários; Reabsorção Óssea; Reabilitação Bucal.

Referências

1. Buser D, Janner SF, Wittneben JG, Bragger U, Ramseier CA, Salvi GE. 10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(6):839-51.
2. Zitzmann NU, Scharer P, Marinello CP. Factors influencing the success of GBR. Smoking, timing of implant placement, implant location, bone quality and provisional restoration. J Clin Periodontol. 1999;26(10):673-82.
3. Srinivasan M, Vazquez L, Rieder P, Moraguez O, Bernard JP, Belser UC. Survival rates of short (6 mm) micro-rough surface implants: a review of literature and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(5):539-45.
4. Zhang XM, Shi JY, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Mo JJ, Lai HC. Clinical investigation and patient satisfaction of short implants versus longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a pilot randomized trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(1):161-66.
5. Lee CT, Chen YW, Starr JR, Chuang SK. Survival analysis of wide dental implant: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(10):1251-64.
6. Tawil G, Younan R. Clinical evaluation of short, machined-surface implants followed for 12 to 92 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(6):894-901.
7. Himmlova L, Dostalova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91(1):20-5.
8. Moraes SL, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, Santiago JF, Jr., Silva JV. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution in retention screws of different crown-implant ratios. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2015;18(7):689-96.
9. Misch CE. Short dental implants: a literature review and rationale for use. Dent Today. 2005;24(8):64-6, 8.
10. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33(1):75-8.
11. 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(1):86-93.
12. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(Suppl 2):35-51.
13. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38(7):667-76.
14. Schincaglia GP, Thoma DS, Haas R, Tutak M, Garcia A, Taylor TD, 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):1042-51.
15. Bechara S, Kubilius R, Veronesi G, Pires JT, Shibli JA, Mangano FG. Short (6-mm) dental implants versus sinus floor elevation and placement of longer (>/=10-mm) dental implants: a randomized controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(9):1097-1107.
16. Sun C, Zhao J, Jianghao C, Hong T. Effect of Heavy Smoking on Dental Implants Placed in Male Patients Posterior Mandibles: A Prospective Clinical Study. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42(6):477-83.
17. Al Amri MD, Abduljabbar TS, Al-Johany SS, Al Rifaiy MQ, Alfarraj Aldosari AM, Al-Kheraif AA. Comparison of clinical and radiographic parameters around short (6 to 8 mm in length) and long (11 mm in length) dental implants placed in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus: 3-year follow-up results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(10):1182-87.
18. Nkenke E, Stelzle F. Clinical outcomes of sinus floor augmentation for implant placement using autogenous bone or bone substitutes: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(Suppl 4):124-33.
19. Silva LD, de Lima VN, Faverani LP, de Mendonça MR, Okamoto R, Pellizzer EP. Maxillary sinus lift surgery-with or without graft material? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(12):1570-76.
20. Barone A, Santini S, Sbordone L, Crespi R, Covani U. A clinical study of the outcomes and complications associated with maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(1):81-5.
21. Atieh MA, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, Cooper LF. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(6):1323-31.
22. Tan WC, Lang NP, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. Part II: transalveolar technique. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(8 Suppl):241-54.
23. French D, Larjava H, Ofec R. Retrospective cohort study of 4591 Straumann implants in private practice setting, with up to 10-year follow-up. Part 1: multivariate survival analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(11):1345-54.
24. Perelli M, Abundo R, Corrente G, Saccone C. Short (5 and 7 mm long) porous implants in the posterior atrophic maxilla: a 5-year report of a prospective single-cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2012;5(3):265-72.
25. Morrison A, Chiarot M, Kirby S. Mental nerve function after inferior alveolar nerve transposition for placement of dental implants. J Can Dent Assoc. 2002;68(1):46-50.
26. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Rimondini L. Autogenous onlay bone grafts vs. alveolar distraction osteogenesis for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: a 2-4-year prospective study on humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(4):432-40.
27. Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29(Suppl 3):197-212.
28. Chrcanovic BR, Custodio AL. Inferior alveolar nerve lateral transposition. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;13(4):213-19.
29. Abayev B, Juodzbalys G. Inferior Alveolar Nerve Lateralization and Transposition for Dental Implant Placement. Part II: a Systematic Review of Neurosensory Complications. J Oral Maxillofac Res.2015;6(1):e3.
30. Jain N, Gulati M, Garg M, Pathak C. Short Implants: New Horizon in Implant Dentistry. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(9):ZE14-7.