Short Implants in the Severely Resorbed Maxilla: A 2‐Year Retrospective Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the predictability of endosseous dental implants is well documented, the restoration of the posterior region of the maxilla remains a challenge. The placement of short implants is one therapeutic option that reduces the need for augmentation therapy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the survival rates of 6 to 8.5 mm-long implants in the severely resorbed maxilla following a surgical protocol for optimized initial implant stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 85 patients with 96 short (6-8.5 mm) implants (Brånemark System, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) supporting single-tooth and partial reconstructions. The implants had a machined (54) or an oxidized (TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB) (42) surface. A one-stage surgical protocol with delayed loading was used. The patients were followed for at least 2 years after loading (average follow-up period 37.6 months). The marginal bone resorption was assessed by radiographic readings. RESULTS: Five implants were lost during the first 9 months, and four implants were lost to follow-up. The cumulative survival rate was 94.6%. Four of the failed implants had a machined surface, and one had an oxidized surface. The mean marginal bone resorption after 2 years in function was 0.44 +/- 0.52 mm. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the use of short implants may be considered for prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla as an alternative to more complicated surgical techniques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".