Literature DB >> 33322472

Comparative Analysis of Peri-Implant Bone Loss in Extra-Short, Short, and Conventional Implants. A 3-Year Retrospective Study.

Daycelí Estévez-Pérez1, Naia Bustamante-Hernández1, Carlos Labaig-Rueda1, María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz1, José Amengual-Lorenzo1, Fernando García-Sala Bonmatí1, Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho2, Rubén Agustín-Panadero1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of implant length on marginal bone loss, comparing implants of 4 mm, 6 mm, and >8 mm, supporting two splinted crowns after 36-month functional loading.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: this retrospective clinical trial evaluated the peri-implant behavior of splinted crowns (two per case) on pairs of implants of the same length placed in the posterior maxilla (molar area). Implants were divided into three groups according to length (Group 1: extra-short 4 mm; Group 2: short 6 mm; Group 3: conventional length >8 mm). Marginal bone loss was analyzed using standardized periapical radiographs at the time of loading and 36 months later.
RESULTS: 24 patients (19 women and 5 men) were divided into three groups, eight rehabilitations per group, in the position of the maxillary first and second molars. The 48 Straumann® Standard Plus (Regular Neck (RN)/Wide Neck (WN)) implants were examined after 36 months of functional loading. Statistical analysis found no significant differences in bone loss between the three groups (p = 0.421). No implant suffered biological complications or implant loss. Long implants were associated with less radiographic bone loss.
CONCLUSIONS: extra-short (4 mm); short (6 mm); and conventional length (>8 mm) implants in the posterior maxilla present similar peri-implant bone loss and 100% survival rates in rehabilitation, by means of two splinted crowns after 36 months of functional loading. Implants placed in posterior positions present better bone loss results than implants placed in anterior positions, regardless of the interproximal area where bone loss is measured. Conventional length (>8 mm) implants show better behavior in terms of distal bone loss than short (6 mm) and extra-short (4 mm) implants.

Entities:  

Keywords:  implant-supported prostheses; marginal bone loss; peri-implantitis; short dental implants; tissue-level

Year:  2020        PMID: 33322472      PMCID: PMC7764541          DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17249278

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health        ISSN: 1660-4601            Impact factor:   3.390


  28 in total

1.  Success rate of short dental implants supporting single crowns and fixed bridges.

Authors:  Hans Malmstrom; Bhumija Gupta; Alexis Ghanem; Rita Cacciato; Yanfang Ren; Georgios E Romanos
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 5.977

2.  A retrospective evaluation of the survival rates of splinted and non-splinted short dental implants in posterior partially edentulous jaws.

Authors:  Jose Alfredo Mendonça; Carlos Eduardo Francischone; Plinio Mendes Senna; Ana Elisa Matos de Oliveira; Bruno Salles Sotto-Maior
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 6.993

3.  Survival rates of short dental implants (≤6 mm) compared with implants longer than 6 mm in posterior jaw areas: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Panos Papaspyridakos; Andre De Souza; Konstantinos Vazouras; Hadi Gholami; Sarah Pagni; Hans-Peter Weber
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 5.977

4.  Fixed and Removable Full-Arch Restorations Supported by Short (≤ 8-mm) Dental Implants In the Mandible: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Patrícia Pauletto; Edwin Ruales-Carrera; Thais Marques Simek Vega Gonçalves; Analucia Gebler Philippi; Nikolaos Donos; Luis André Mezzomo
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 2.804

5.  Long-term retrospective evaluation of short implants in the posterior areas: clinical results after 10-12 years.

Authors:  Eduardo Anitua; Laura Piñas; Leire Begoña; Gorka Orive
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 8.728

6.  Long-Term Esthetic Outcome of Tissue-Level and Bone-Level Implants in the Anterior Maxilla.

Authors:  Carola Siebert; Dominik Rieder; Jochen Eggert; Manfred Gerhard Wichmann; Siegfried Martin Heckmann
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2018 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 2.804

7.  Four-millimeter implants supporting fixed partial dental prostheses in the severely resorbed posterior mandible: two-year results.

Authors:  Christer Slotte; Arne Grønningsaeter; Anne-Marie Halmøy; Lars-Olof Öhrnell; Göran Stroh; Sten Isaksson; Lars-Åke Johansson; Arne Mordenfeld; Jan Eklund; Jan Embring
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 3.932

8.  Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study.

Authors:  Lars Schropp; Ann Wenzel; Lambros Kostopoulos; Thorkild Karring
Journal:  Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Comparing 4-mm dental implants to longer implants placed in augmented bones in the atrophic posterior mandibles: One-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Amir Reza Rokn; Abbas Monzavi; Mehrdad Panjnoush; Hamid Mahmood Hashemi; Mohammad Javad Kharazifard; Tahereh Bitaraf
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 3.932

Review 10.  Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration.

Authors:  Ralf Smeets; Bernd Stadlinger; Frank Schwarz; Benedicta Beck-Broichsitter; Ole Jung; Clarissa Precht; Frank Kloss; Alexander Gröbe; Max Heiland; Tobias Ebker
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.