Daniel S Thoma1, Robert Haas2, Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak3, Abel Garcia4, Thomas D Taylor5, Christoph H F Hämmerle1. 1. Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Akademie für Orale Implantologie, Private Practice, Vienna, Austria. 3. Aesthetic Dent, Private Practice, Szczecin, Poland. 4. University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 5. University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants and standard length implants placed in combination with bone grafting at 5 years of loading. METHODS: This multicentre study enrolled 101 patients (137 implants) with a posterior maxillary bone height of 5-7 mm. Patients randomly received either short implants (6 mm; GS) or long implants (11-15 mm) with sinus grafting (GG). Six months later, implants were loaded with single crowns and patients re-examined at 1, 3 and 5 years of loading. Outcomes included: implant survival, marginal bone levels (MBLs), biological and technical parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (OHIP-49 = Oral Health Impact Profile). Statistical analysis was performed using a non-parametric approach. RESULTS: At 5 years, 90 patients (124 implants; GS: 60; GG: 64) were re-examined (drop-out rate 10%). Patient-level implant survival rates were 98.5% (GS; 1 implant failure) and 100% (GG; p = 0.49). Mean MBLs were 0.54 mm ± 0.87 (GS) and 0.46 mm ± 1.00 (GG; p = 0.34). Biological and technical parameters were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Median overall OHIP-49 scores improved significantly up to 5 years in both groups (GS: p = 0.03; GG: p = 0.00; intergroup comparison p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities were suitable for implant therapy in the atrophied posterior maxilla revealing no differences in terms of survival rates, marginal bone levels (changes), patient-reported outcomes and technical/biological complications.
AIM: To compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants and standard length implants placed in combination with bone grafting at 5 years of loading. METHODS: This multicentre study enrolled 101 patients (137 implants) with a posterior maxillary bone height of 5-7 mm. Patients randomly received either short implants (6 mm; GS) or long implants (11-15 mm) with sinus grafting (GG). Six months later, implants were loaded with single crowns and patients re-examined at 1, 3 and 5 years of loading. Outcomes included: implant survival, marginal bone levels (MBLs), biological and technical parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (OHIP-49 = Oral Health Impact Profile). Statistical analysis was performed using a non-parametric approach. RESULTS: At 5 years, 90 patients (124 implants; GS: 60; GG: 64) were re-examined (drop-out rate 10%). Patient-level implant survival rates were 98.5% (GS; 1 implant failure) and 100% (GG; p = 0.49). Mean MBLs were 0.54 mm ± 0.87 (GS) and 0.46 mm ± 1.00 (GG; p = 0.34). Biological and technical parameters were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Median overall OHIP-49 scores improved significantly up to 5 years in both groups (GS: p = 0.03; GG: p = 0.00; intergroup comparison p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities were suitable for implant therapy in the atrophied posterior maxilla revealing no differences in terms of survival rates, marginal bone levels (changes), patient-reported outcomes and technical/biological complications.
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: Guillermo Pardo-Zamora; Antonio José Ortiz-Ruíz; Fabio Camacho-Alonso; José Francisco Martínez-Marco; Juan Manuel Molina-González; Núria Piqué-Clusella; Ascensión Vicente-Hernández Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Felix L Guljé; Henny J A Meijer; Ingemar Abrahamsson; Christopher A Barwacz; Stephen Chen; Paul J Palmer; Homayoun Zadeh; Clark M Stanford Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 5.977