PURPOSE: Short dental implants facilitate prosthetic restoration in the setting of limited alveolar bone height. The study objectives were to (1) estimate the 1-year survival of Bicon 6 x 5.7-mm implants, (2) compare the 1-year survival of 6 x 5.7-mm implants with that of non-6 x 5.7-mm implants, and (3) identify risk factors associated with implant failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design was used. The sample was composed of patients who had received at least one 6 x 5.7-mm implant. Predictor variables were categorized as demographic, health status, anatomic, implant-specific, prosthetic, perioperative, and reconstructive. The outcome variable was implant failure, defined as explantation. Appropriate descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate survival statistics were computed. RESULTS: The sample was composed of 35 patients in whom 172 implants had been placed (45 of which were 6 x 5.7-mm). The 1-year survival rates for 6 x 5.7-mm and non-6 x 5.7-mm implants were 92.2% and 95.2%, respectively (P = .76). After adjusting for covariates in a multivariate model, implant size was not associated with failure (P = .95). DISCUSSION: The comparable survival estimates for 6 x 5.7-mm implants and non-6 x 5.7-mm implants in this study suggested that 6 x 5.7-mm implants can become osseointegrated and bear a functional load after placement. CONCLUSIONS: The survival of 6 x 5.7-mm implants was comparable to that of non-6 x 5.7-mm implants.
PURPOSE: Short dental implants facilitate prosthetic restoration in the setting of limited alveolar bone height. The study objectives were to (1) estimate the 1-year survival of Bicon 6 x 5.7-mm implants, (2) compare the 1-year survival of 6 x 5.7-mm implants with that of non-6 x 5.7-mm implants, and (3) identify risk factors associated with implant failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design was used. The sample was composed of patients who had received at least one 6 x 5.7-mm implant. Predictor variables were categorized as demographic, health status, anatomic, implant-specific, prosthetic, perioperative, and reconstructive. The outcome variable was implant failure, defined as explantation. Appropriate descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate survival statistics were computed. RESULTS: The sample was composed of 35 patients in whom 172 implants had been placed (45 of which were 6 x 5.7-mm). The 1-year survival rates for 6 x 5.7-mm and non-6 x 5.7-mm implants were 92.2% and 95.2%, respectively (P = .76). After adjusting for covariates in a multivariate model, implant size was not associated with failure (P = .95). DISCUSSION: The comparable survival estimates for 6 x 5.7-mm implants and non-6 x 5.7-mm implants in this study suggested that 6 x 5.7-mm implants can become osseointegrated and bear a functional load after placement. CONCLUSIONS: The survival of 6 x 5.7-mm implants was comparable to that of non-6 x 5.7-mm implants.
Authors: Giorgio Lombardo; Mauro Marincola; Andrea Cicconetti; Miguel Angel Simancas-Pallares; Jacopo Pighi; Jeffrey Lehrberg; Annarita Signoriello; Giovanni Corrocher; Xiomara Serpa-Romero; Luis Armando Vila Sierra; Luisa Arevalo-Tovar; Pier Francesco Nocini Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2019-09-15
Authors: Guillermo Pardo-Zamora; Antonio José Ortiz-Ruíz; Fabio Camacho-Alonso; José Francisco Martínez-Marco; Juan Manuel Molina-González; Núria Piqué-Clusella; Ascensión Vicente-Hernández Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.390