{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036989795918367346, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018494897959183673, 'mean_word_length': 4.988549618320611, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of Ultrashort and Longer Implants with Microrough Surfaces: Results of a 24- to 36-Month Prospective Study.

PURPOSE
The aim of this prospective study was to establish if ultrashort implants are a reliable therapeutic solution by evaluating their effect on mean crestal bone loss and assessing their survival and success rates.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients were treated using 6-, 9-, and 11-mm-long implants with sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces and fitted with fixed partial prostheses. Clinical and radiographic examinations were scheduled yearly. Data collected included the implant positioning site, implant length and diameter, peri-implant bone loss (PBL), and clinical and anatomical C/I ratios.


RESULTS
One hundred eleven implants (6-mm-long, 30.6%) were positioned; two implants were lost before loading. During the 36-month followup, no other implants were lost (98.2% survival rate, 100% from loading), but four implants did not meet the criteria for success, due to excessive crestal bone loss, resulting in a 94.6% success rate, 96.3% from loading. Success rates and peri-implant bone loss were not significantly different among implants with different lengths. No correlation was observed between implant length and bone resorption.


CONCLUSION
Six-millimeter-long implants did not show different results in comparison with 9- and 11-mm-long implants. They can be considered a reliable solution for implant prosthetic rehabilitation and a dependable and minimally invasive therapeutic option in areas showing severe bone resorption.