Huajie Yu1, Xing Wang2, Lixin Qiu3. 1. Prosthodontist, Restoration/Data analysis, 4th Dental Department, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China. 2. Professor, Critical revision of article, President of Chinese Stomatological Association, Beijing, China. 3. Professor, Surgery/Approval of article, Dean of 4th Dental Department, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very few controlled studies have compared short and long implants placed with appropriate sinus floor elevation techniques. PURPOSE: To compare the 2-year outcomes of 6.5-mm hydrophilic implants placed with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in patients with a severely atrophic posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty-eight patients with a residual bone height of 4-5 mm were randomized to receive one of the two above-mentioned treatments. Intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. The implant survival rate, peri-implant bone level, and periapical endosinus bone gain were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 80 inserted implants, one in the long implant group failed because of abscess formation. The peri-implant bone level change (0.35 ± 0.60 mm vs 0.40 ± 0.71 mm) was not significantly different between the two groups. The endosinus bone gain was 2.94 ± 0.81 mm and 10.19 ± 0.95 mm in the short and long implant groups, respectively. No serious adverse events related to implant surgery were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the placement of 6.5-mm short implants with OSFE is an effective alternative for the rehabilitation of a severely atrophic posterior maxilla.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Very few controlled studies have compared short and long implants placed with appropriate sinus floor elevation techniques. PURPOSE: To compare the 2-year outcomes of 6.5-mm hydrophilic implants placed with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in patients with a severely atrophic posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with a residual bone height of 4-5 mm were randomized to receive one of the two above-mentioned treatments. Intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. The implant survival rate, peri-implant bone level, and periapical endosinus bone gain were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 80 inserted implants, one in the long implant group failed because of abscess formation. The peri-implant bone level change (0.35 ± 0.60 mm vs 0.40 ± 0.71 mm) was not significantly different between the two groups. The endosinus bone gain was 2.94 ± 0.81 mm and 10.19 ± 0.95 mm in the short and long implant groups, respectively. No serious adverse events related to implant surgery were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the placement of 6.5-mm short implants with OSFE is an effective alternative for the rehabilitation of a severely atrophic posterior maxilla.
Authors: Arkadiusz Makowiecki; Jakub Hadzik; Artur Błaszczyszyn; Tomasz Gedrange; Marzena Dominiak Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Roberto Farina; Anna Simonelli; Giovanni Franceschetti; Luigi Minenna; Gian Pietro Schincaglia; Orio Riccardi; Leonardo Trombelli Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 3.606