A Clinical Comparison between Mini and Short Dental Implants in Completely Edentulous Patients with Atrophic Ridges

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Dentist at Matarya Teaching hospital , General Organization For Teaching Hospitals

2 Lecturer of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University

3 Professor of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University.

4 Lecturer of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University.

Abstract

Aim:
This study aimed to compare between mini implants and short implants supported overdentures in completely edentulous patients with atrophic ridges not suitable for conventional implants.
 
Materials and methods: Ten completely edentulous patients with severely resorbed mandible and age ranged between 55 and 60 years were selected for this study. Complete heat cured acrylic resin dentures were constructed for all patients. Patients were divided into two groups, each group had five edentulous patients, In Group I, each patient received two mandibular mini-implants at the canine site with a standard diameter 2.5 mm and standard length 10 mm, while in Group II, each patient received two mandibular short implants at the canine site with standard diameter 3.4 mm and standard length 10 mm. All implants in both groups were placed following immediate loading protocol. Patients were recalled for a follow-up period of 1 year, evaluating implants clinically for pocket depth and gingival index at baseline, then 3, 6 and 9 months intervals, and evaluating bone height loss radiographically at baseline, then 6, 9 and 12 months intervals.
 
Results: Pocket depth and crestal bone height loss increased in patients using short implants than patients using mini implants, while gingival index parameter in all patients was not affected by using the two types of implants.
 
Conclusion: Mini dental implants have a favorable effect on the supporting structure than short dental implants in both clinical and radiographic evaluation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics