Assessment of deep threaded short implants versus conventional threaded short implants in atrophic posterior maxilla | ||||
| Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science | ||||
| Volume 28, Issue 3, July 2025, Page 423-430 PDF (614.21 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/ajdsm.2023.254690.1482 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Fathi Ahmad Otian  1; mansour mohamed hussien2; Ahmed Mohamed Elfar3
| ||||
| 1Maxillofacial and oral surgery faculty of dentistry al al al-zhar university | ||||
| 2Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Boys, Cairo, Al-Azhar University | ||||
| 3Lecturer, Oral andMaxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine,Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Boys | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objectives: Successful osseointegration in regions with cancellous bone, such as the posterior atrophic maxilla, relies heavily on the stability of short dental implants. Implant macro design plays a crucial role in determining implant stability, particularly with regards to thread design. Implants with deeper threads tend to engage better with the cancellous bone, resulting in higher primary stability. Patients and Methods: The study included fourteen patients between the ages of 39 and 60 who had one or more missing teeth in the posterior maxilla and had at least 6-8mm of residual bone height. The patients were randomly divided into two equal groups: group (I) received conventional threaded short dental implants, while group (II) received deep threaded short dental implants. Preoperative and postoperative clinical and radiographic evaluations were conducted at immediate and 6-month post-surgery intervals. Implant stability was assessed clinically using Osstell, while bone density measurements were obtained using CBCT in the radiographic evaluation.Results: fourteen patient with fourteen implant site seven implants (conventional threads) was inserted in group I and seven implants (deep threads) were inserted in group II. No implants and prostheses failed. No biological complications were identified. No significant differences were found between both groups in the incidence of postoperative pain, facial swelling, bone resorption, and peri-implant bone density Group II implants had higher primary stability than group I with significant improvement in secondary stability measured 6 months postoperatively in both groups | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| short implant; posterior maxilla; implant stability; deep threaded implant | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 13 PDF Download: 6 |
||||
