Amir Reza Rokn1, Abbas Monzavi2, Mehrdad Panjnoush3, Hamid Mahmood Hashemi4, Mohammad Javad Kharazifard5, Tahereh Bitaraf6. 1. Dental Implant Research Center, Dental Research Institute, Department of Periodontics of Dental School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Dental Research Institute, Department of Prosthodontics of Dental School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Dental Implant Research Center, Dental Research Institute, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of dental school, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 5. Dental Research Center, Dental Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 6. Dental Implant Research Center, Dental Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, PO, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short implants have been proposed as an alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous areas. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of 4-mm implants vs longer implants in the atrophic posterior mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Eleven patients with bilateral atrophic mandibles were rehabilitated with two to four 4-mm implants and 10 or 8-mm long implants in augmented bone using Guided Bone Regeneration procedure. One side of the mandibles was randomly allocated to vertical augmentation with mixed autogenous bone and allograft. Implants were placed in both sides of the mandible after 6 months, and loaded after another 2 months. Subsequently, implant and prosthesis failures, marginal bone levels changes, and any complication were evaluated after 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: In this study, one patient dropped out and no failures occurred. However, 4-mm implants loss of 0.30 ± 0.34 mm peri-implant marginal bone and long implants loss of 0.47 ± 0.54 mm marginal bone were observed after 1-year of follow-up. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (difference = -0.16 ± 0.68 mm; P = 0.46). Eight complications occurred in five augmented sites of the patients, and no complication was found to occur in the short implants sites. CONCLUSIONS: One-year after loading, 4-mm implants had similar outcomes as long implants in augmented bone. Therefore, short implants might be a feasible treatment in atrophic mandibles.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Short implants have been proposed as an alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous areas. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of 4-mm implants vs longer implants in the atrophic posterior mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients with bilateral atrophic mandibles were rehabilitated with two to four 4-mm implants and 10 or 8-mm long implants in augmented bone using Guided Bone Regeneration procedure. One side of the mandibles was randomly allocated to vertical augmentation with mixed autogenous bone and allograft. Implants were placed in both sides of the mandible after 6 months, and loaded after another 2 months. Subsequently, implant and prosthesis failures, marginal bone levels changes, and any complication were evaluated after 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: In this study, one patient dropped out and no failures occurred. However, 4-mm implants loss of 0.30 ± 0.34 mm peri-implant marginal bone and long implants loss of 0.47 ± 0.54 mm marginal bone were observed after 1-year of follow-up. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (difference = -0.16 ± 0.68 mm; P = 0.46). Eight complications occurred in five augmented sites of the patients, and no complication was found to occur in the short implants sites. CONCLUSIONS: One-year after loading, 4-mm implants had similar outcomes as long implants in augmented bone. Therefore, short implants might be a feasible treatment in atrophic mandibles.
Authors: Fabio Rossi; Lorenzo Tuci; Lorenzo Ferraioli; Emanuele Ricci; Andreea Suerica; Daniele Botticelli; Gerardo Pellegrino; Pietro Felice Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Daycelí Estévez-Pérez; Naia Bustamante-Hernández; Carlos Labaig-Rueda; María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz; José Amengual-Lorenzo; Fernando García-Sala Bonmatí; Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho; Rubén Agustín-Panadero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 3.390
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