Literature DB >> 26917439

Success of 6-mm Implants with Single-Tooth Restorations: A 3-year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

P Sahrmann1, N Naenni2, R E Jung2, U Held3, T Truninger2, C H F Hämmerle2, T Attin4, P R Schmidlin4.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to test whether implants of 6 mm in length perform equally well as 10-mm implants in terms of survival and marginal bone-level changes when supporting single crowns. Patients with a posterior single-tooth gap were randomly allocated to either the placement of a 6-mm (test) or 10-mm implant (control). The treatment protocol allowed for internal sinus lift but not for lateral bone augmentation. After a healing period of 10 wk, implants were loaded with screw-retained single crowns. Survival rates, number of pockets ≥5 mm, and bleeding-on-probing were assessed clinically. The change of marginal bone level and crown-to-implant ratios were analyzed by 2 examiners. Longitudinal intragroup analyses for marginal bone levels were performed applying the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Intergroup differences at baseline and at 3 y were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The effect of implant length and crown-to-implant ratio on changes of marginal bone level also was determined. Of 94 implants placed (47 test and 47 control), 78 implants (40 test and 38 control) were available for follow-up examination at 3 y of loading. One test implant was lost during the second year. Hence, implant survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups after 3 y (98% test; 100% control). We found no significant change in the crestal bone level from baseline to 3 y for test and control implants with -0.19 ± 0.62 mm and -0.33 ± 0.71 mm, respectively. The intergroup difference was not significant. Crown-to-implant ratios were not associated with a statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss. However, the number of sites with pockets ≥5 mm was significantly higher in the test group. Based on the 3-y assessment, the use of 6-mm implants can be considered a viable option when reconstructing posterior single tooth gaps (German Clinical Trials Registry: DRKS00006290). © International & American Associations for Dental Research 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  alveolar bone loss; dental implants; dental radiography; peri-implantitis; survival; treatment outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26917439     DOI: 10.1177/0022034516633432

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  15 in total

1.  Clinical, radiographic and restorative parameters for short tuberosity implants placed in smokers: a retrospective study with 5 year follow-up.

Authors:  Aasem M Alhenaki; Faraz K Alrawi; Ahmed Mohamed; Abdullah Alshahrani; Mohammed Alrabiah; Sameer A Mokeem; Eman M AlHamdan; Paras Ahmad; Fahim Vohra; Tariq Abduljabbar
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 2.634

2.  An evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss according to implant type, surgical technique and prosthetic rehabilitation: a retrospective multicentre and cross-sectional cohort study.

Authors:  Lizett Castellanos-Cosano; Alba Carrasco-García; José-Ramón Corcuera-Flores; Javier Silvestre-Rangil; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Guillermo Machuca-Portillo
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 2.634

3.  Short versus standard implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Manuel Toledano; Enrique Fernández-Romero; Cristina Vallecillo; Raquel Toledano; María T Osorio; Marta Vallecillo-Rivas
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 3.606

Review 4.  Short Implants versus Longer Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with a Post-Loading Follow-Up Duration of 5 Years.

Authors:  Miaozhen Wang; Feng Liu; Christian Ulm; Huidan Shen; Xiaohui Rausch-Fan
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.748

5.  Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla.

Authors:  Eik Schiegnitz; Nina Hill; Keyvan Sagheb; Jochem König; Kawe Sagheb; Bilal Al-Nawas
Journal:  Acta Stomatol Croat       Date:  2022-06

Review 6.  The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Zhe-Zhen Lin; Yan-Qing Jiao; Zhang-Yan Ye; Ge-Ge Wang; Xi Ding
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-05-20

Review 7.  Treatment concepts for the posterior maxilla and mandible: short implants versus long implants in augmented bone.

Authors:  Daniel Stefan Thoma; Jae-Kook Cha; Ui-Won Jung
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 2.614

8.  Computed tomographic analysis of maxillary sinus anatomy relevant to sinus lift procedures in edentulous ridges in Taiwanese patients.

Authors:  Shun-Jen Yu; Yi-Hao Lee; Ching-Ping Lin; Aaron Yu-Jen Wu
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 2.614

9.  Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qi Yan; Xinyu Wu; Meiying Su; Fang Hua; Bin Shi
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Is there an effect of crown-to-implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review.

Authors:  Henny J A Meijer; Carina Boven; Konstantina Delli; Gerry M Raghoebar
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 5.977

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.