PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical parameters and patient satisfaction of the treatments with short implants compared to longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae. MATERIALS AND METHOD: The patient data were retrieved from an ongoing randomized controlled trial (NCT02350075). Patients were randomly allocated into three groups: (group1: short-6 mm implant, group 2: short-8-mm implant with OSFE, group 3: standard-10 mm implant with OSFE). Early implant failure, complications, implant stability quotient (ISQ) and patient satisfaction by means of visual analogue scale (VAS) were evaluated. ANOVA analysis was performed for the data comparison. RESULTS:Fifty-six patients were enrolled in the present study. No implant loss was found by the end of the restoration placement. No significant difference of ISQ values was found among three groups at the time of implant surgery and impression taking (p = .67 and.54, respectively). VAS values regarding intraoperative vibratory sense in group 1 were significantly higher than those in group 3 (p = .01). CONCLUSION: All three treatments were safe in atrophic posterior maxilla (6 mm ≤ residual bone height < 8 mm). Patients were satisfied with all three treatments, while the malleting during the osteotome procedure could make patients feel uncomfortable.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical parameters and patient satisfaction of the treatments with short implants compared to longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae. MATERIALS AND METHOD: The patient data were retrieved from an ongoing randomized controlled trial (NCT02350075). Patients were randomly allocated into three groups: (group1: short-6 mm implant, group 2: short-8-mm implant with OSFE, group 3: standard-10 mm implant with OSFE). Early implant failure, complications, implant stability quotient (ISQ) and patient satisfaction by means of visual analogue scale (VAS) were evaluated. ANOVA analysis was performed for the data comparison. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were enrolled in the present study. No implant loss was found by the end of the restoration placement. No significant difference of ISQ values was found among three groups at the time of implant surgery and impression taking (p = .67 and.54, respectively). VAS values regarding intraoperative vibratory sense in group 1 were significantly higher than those in group 3 (p = .01). CONCLUSION: All three treatments were safe in atrophic posterior maxilla (6 mm ≤ residual bone height < 8 mm). Patients were satisfied with all three treatments, while the malleting during the osteotome procedure could make patients feel uncomfortable.
Authors: Rodrigo Andrés-García; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Mariano Herrero-Climent; Pedro Bullón; Javier Fernández-Farhall; Alberto Gómez-Menchero; Ana Fernández-Palacín; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390