The length of implant will depend upon the location and segment dimensions of its placement.

In my mind, whenever we are trying to define something in implant dentistry we should first go to the Glossary of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants to determine if there is a definition that already exists. Unfortunately there is not a definition for "short" implants.

Classically the definition of short implants was an implant that was less than 10 mm in length. Early in implant dentistry this meant that the short implant was an implant that was 7 mm in height but it must be remembered that the early generation Branemark Implant was an implant that had approximately 1.2 mm of coronal collar that was a relatively smooth collar. So if we think of a threaded implant surface as where we expect osseointegration to occur a 7 mm Bränemark Implant would actually be an implant with a 5.8 mm integratabtle surface. After a period of time Nobel bio care introduced an 8.5 mm implant which would have had 7.3 mm of integratabtle surface. This implant was considered to be the shortest of the standard implants and consequently would not have been termed "short". Are you confused yet?

So the 5.8 mm integratable surface of the 7 mm Bränemark Implant made it an implant that we called a short implant. This implant was measured from the coronal aspect of the Restorative platform to the apical aspect of the implant.

Straumann, with their tissue level implant, described an implant that was 8 mm in height. The difference between it and the Nobel bio care implant was that the Nobel bio care talked about platform to apex and the Straumann talked about apex to the coronal most point of the roughened surface of the implant. The tissue level component of this implant was either 1.8 or 2.8 mm in length. So a Straumann 8 mm implant had 8 mm of integratable surface which was 2.2 mm more integratable surface than the 7 mm Bränemark Implant.

When Straumann discussed their "short Implant" they described that as an 8 mm implant. Had Nobel named that Implant they would have called it a 10.8 or 9.8 mm implant. Got it?

So at the end of the day short from one company is not the same as short from another company.

Straumann has introduced a 6 mm tissue level implant that truly has 6 mm of implant that will sit in bone but the implant itself is 7.8 mm in height or 8.8 mm in height depending upon whether you use the aesthetic plus implant, which is the shorter of the two, or use the standard tissue level 6 mm implant. So they make it a little bit more confusing by describing the plus implant is the one that is shorter and overall height, the aesthetic term is the description of this being an implant that should be used in an aesthetic situation hence they would like a smaller polish collar.

Straumann now has an implant that is 4 mm of integratable surface with 1.8 mm of polished color. It is once again a tissue level implant. When you look at that Implant your first thought is "my, isn't this short."

The reality is that one company looks at the height of an implant or the length of an implant in a certain way and another company looks at it in a different way. The companies figure that they have marketed the implants using the terminology that they use for a period of time that has the product configuration etched in the minds of their users. After all is said and done no one wants to change the way they look at their "short" implant and we have made the situation a better by defining it.

I think once the glossary comes around to defining short implants it will define it on the basis of the anticipated integratable surface. This would make it a lot easier to understand especially since most implants from most big companies are now using a roughened or microtextured surface As the surfaces that they anticipate being covered with bone or "undergoing osseointegration". you can hold those implants up to a light and with your naked eye you can see where the roughened surface begins in the polished surface ends. On the tissue level implants doesn't seem to make much difference as long as you are roughening the implant up to the top of the Restorative platform that there are some reasons why people don't do that.

So I can see why the question was asked and I can also see how the implant companies aren't making it easy for us to answer it.

7 mm or less can be consireded short nowadays

There is no general consensus in dentistry as to what constitutes a short versus a long implant. Various investigators have considered various lengths of less than or equal to 7 mm up to 10 mm as short. Implants 10 mm or greater in length are considered long or standard length.

Reference:

Dent Clin North Am. 2015 Apr;59(2):317-28.

doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2014.10.008. Epub 2015 Jan 9.

Short implants: are they a viable option in implant dentistry?

Schwartz SR.

The definition of short implant is controversial in the litterature. To my knowledge, there is no consensus at this point of view. Dental implants with the length of 10, 8 or 7 may be considered as short according to different studies. But the current Clinical literature seems to consider 7mm and less as short. Go to pubmed with he term" short implant in dentistry".

I can help you with some references.

Renouard and Nisand defined short implants to be 8 mm or less of length (Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(Suppl. 2):35-51).

Moreover, there is an interesting metaanalysis regarding vertical bone augmentation and alternative treatments (as short implants) for the treatment of atrophic edentulous mandibles which concludes that short implants (5 to 8 mm long) are preferred as they are less invasive and produce fewer complication rates compared to vertical grafting procedures ( Camps-Font O, Burgueño-Barris G, Figueiredo R, Jung RE, Gay-Escoda C, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Interventions for Dental Implant Placement in Atrophic Edentulous Mandibles: Vertical Bone Augmentation and Alternative Treatments. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. J Periodontol. 2016;87(12):1444-57).

I hope I have been able to help you.

Dear Tulio, please have a look at the meta-analysis of my colleague Dr Srinivasan: Article Survival rates of short (6 mm) micro-rough surface implants:...

Fr my purposes, less than 8mm is regarded as short implant.

Kind regards from Bern, Martin

The problem that we have is a different manufacturers of confuse the issue. If we accept the notion that integration is going to occur only on areas that have some degree of micro-roughness then we can start to discuss where integration should take place.

What do I mean? Well if you look at the first generation of Implants that were said to undergo osseointegration, those implants had a relatively smooth (Ra or Sa value) of somewhere between 0.5 and 1 µm at the coronal aspect of the implant on the external parallel walls of the Restorative platform. That platform was anywhere from about a millimeter to is much as 2.8 mm. If the company describes their implant by the surface that they anticipate integration to occur upon, then you simply look at the intentionally micro roughened or even macro roughened, in the case of the macro threads on the original Bränemark Implant, and you report that as the length of the implant.

Micro implants may or may not exhibit a microscopic form that is conducive to osseointegration.

So you see there's no one answer to this question until we agree on what the surface is to which integration can occur. Remember I'm not saying that it will occur, it's just that it may occur or it could occur.

It's fine to consider what different systematic reviews have come up with, and I've sat on some of those systematic review groups, but I can tell you that most of the time the ground rules are not established upfront regarding the definition of what is the integratable surface? There are lots of ground rules that are set out in systematic reviews but one of the complaints with systematic reviews is that if they leave out one factor or one criteria it is easy to be misled by the results. Whether it's intentional "Systematic" or unintentional "random noise" either one of these two forms of bias can skew the results.

8 mm dental implant is the minimum length recommended by many surgeons, however, the need for shorter implant, makes it to be appeared in the market.

Short dental implant = less than 8 mm

Hi dear Anas,

There is no clear difinition for the term short implant in literature. However, in the past the shortest dental implant manufactured by most of the companies were 7-8 mm length. In recent years, some dental implant companies produced up to 4.8 mm length (rough surface). In my point of view, do not use implant shorter than 5 mm length, this related to the average annual bone resorption is 1 mm/year. Fo this reason, if we regard the successfull time for the dental implant is 5 years, which will be difficult with implant shorter than 5 mm.

Best wishes

Sam

No clear definitions are presented. Dental practitioner usually name devices of 6 mm and less of length as "short"

Many studies consider implants shorter than 10 mm as "short implants", although there is no clear consensus on that.

Although many studies consider implants shorter than 10 mm as "short implants", nowadays I think that 7mm or less may be considered "shorts". The improvements in the surfaces gives us very high results using 8mm or more, so perhaps 7mm should be the "breaking pointing" to perform new studies in relation to implant length.

You can answer yourself this question by analyzing occlusion and a ratio of an implant length to crown length. Follow C. Misch's classification. Without knowing the implant platform most answerers, that 8mm or less is short, are correct.

For platforms 5mm and greater 10mm is short, same for NDI 2.8-3.0mm min. lengths are ~10mm.

Bicon and others have extra wide implants for special considerations. Look up their catalog how they have designed and established short. They come with their own instrumentation sets.

Only problem here is that there is not any consistent relationship between implant length and crown length. Right now, it would appear that crown length or proportion of crown length:implant length is not a negative factor.

Interesting