Literature DB >> 27022635

Posterior jaws rehabilitated with partial prostheses supported by 4.0 x 4.0 mm or by longer implants: One-year post-loading results from a multicenter randomised controlled trial.

Pietro Felice, Luigi Checchi, Carlo Barausse, Roberto Pistilli, Gilberto Sammartino, Irene Masi, Daniela Rita Ippolito, Marco Esposito.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether 4.0 x 4.0 mm dental implants could be an alternative to implants at least 8.5 mm long, which were placed in posterior jaws, in the presence of adequate bone volumes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients with posterior (premolar and molar areas) jaws having at least 12.5 mm bone height above the mandibular canal or 11.5 mm below the maxillary sinus, were randomised according to a parallel group design, in order to receive one to three 4.0 mm-long implants or one to three implants which were at least 8.5 mm-long, at three centres. All implants had a diameter of 4.0 mm. Implants were loaded after 4 months with definitive screw-retained prostheses. Patients were followed up to 1-year post-loading and outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, any complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.
RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were randomly allocated to each group. One patient dropped out after the 4-month post-loading evaluation from the long implant group. Up to 1-year post-loading, 3 patients lost one 4.0 mm-long implant each in comparison to 2 patients who lost one long implant each (difference in proportion = 0.013; 95% CI: -0.058 to 0.087; P = 0.506). All failures occurred before loading, the failed implants were replaced and the delivery of two prostheses in each group was delayed for several months (difference in proportion = 0.0004; 95% CI: -0.068 to 0.069; P = 0.685). Three short implant patients experienced three complications versus 2 long implant patients (difference in proportion = 0.013; 95% CI: -0.058 to 0.087; P = 0.506). There were no statistically significant differences in prosthesis failures, implant failures and complications. Patients with short implants lost on average 0.53 mm of peri-implant bone and patients with longer implants lost 0.57 mm. There were no statistically significant differences in bone level changes up to 1 year between short and long implants (mean difference = 0.038 mm; 95% CI: -0.068 to 0.138; P = 0.198).
CONCLUSIONS: One year after loading 4.0 mm-long implants achieved similar results as 8.5 mm-long or longer implants in posterior jaws, however 5- to 10-year post-loading data are necessary before reliable recommendations can be made.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27022635

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Oral Implantol        ISSN: 1756-2406            Impact factor:   3.123


  11 in total

Review 1.  Short versus Longer Implants in Sites without the Need for Bone Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Luigi Guida; Eriberto Bressan; Gennaro Cecoro; Armando Davide Volpe; Massimo Del Fabbro; Marco Annunziata
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 3.748

2.  Alveolar ridge dimensions in mandibular posterior regions: a retrospective comparative study of dentate and edentulous sites using computerized tomography data.

Authors:  Mattia Pramstraller; Gian Pietro Schincaglia; Renata Vecchiatini; Roberto Farina; Leonardo Trombelli
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  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

4.  A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation.

Authors:  Xiaoran Yu; Ruogu Xu; Zhengchuan Zhang; Yang Yang; Feilong Deng
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Bone repair access of BoneCeramic™ in 5-mm defects: study on rat calvaria.

Authors:  André Luis da Silva Fabris; Leonardo Perez Faverani; Pedro Henrique Silva Gomes-Ferreira; Tárik Ocon Braga Polo; Joel Ferreira Santiago-Júnior; Roberta Okamoto
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 2.698

6.  Comparing Short Dental Implants to Standard Dental Implants: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Amir Reza Rokn; Abbasali Keshtkar; Abbas Monzavi; Kazem Hashemi; Tahereh Bitaraf
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2018-01-18

Review 7.  Recent advances in dental implants.

Authors:  Do Gia Khang Hong; Ji-Hyeon Oh
Journal:  Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2017-11-05

Review 8.  Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis.

Authors:  Vittorio Moraschini; Carlos Fernando de Almeida Barros Mourão; Pietro Montemezzi; Ingrid Chaves Cavalcante Kischinhevsky; Daniel Costa Ferreira de Almeida; Kayvon Javid; Jamil Awad Shibli; José Mauro Granjeiro; Monica Diuana Calasans-Maia
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-12

Review 9.  Dental Implants Inserted in Fresh Extraction Sockets versus Healed Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Adam Ibrahim; Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.623

10.  Thermal Load and Heat Transfer in Dental Titanium Implants: An Ex Vivo-Based Exact Analytical/Numerical Solution to the 'Heat Equation'.

Authors:  Grigorios P Panotopoulos; Ziyad S Haidar
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.