Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Short dental implants (6 mm) versus long dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 3-year results from a multicentre, randomized, controlled clinical trial.
Pohl, Veronika; Thoma, Daniel S; Sporniak-Tutak, Katarzyna; Garcia-Garcia, Abel; Taylor, Thomas D; Haas, Robert; Hämmerle, Christoph H F.
Afiliación
  • Pohl V; Academy for Oral Implantology, Private Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
  • Thoma DS; Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Sporniak-Tutak K; Aesthetic Dent, Private Practice, Szczecin, Poland.
  • Garcia-Garcia A; University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
  • Taylor TD; Division of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
  • Haas R; Academy for Oral Implantology, Private Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
  • Hämmerle CH; Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
J Clin Periodontol ; 44(4): 438-445, 2017 Apr.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28081288
AIM: To test whether the use of short dental implants (6 mm) results in an implant survival rate similar to that with longer implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus grafting. METHODS: This multicentre study enrolled 101 patients with partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla and a remaining bone height of 5-7 mm. Included patients were randomly assigned to receive short implants (6 mm; GS/group short) or long implants (11-15 mm) simultaneously with sinus grafting (GG/group graft). Six months after implant placement (IP), implants were loaded with single crowns (PR) and patients were re-examined yearly thereafter. Assessed outcomes included: implant survival, marginal bone level changes (MBL), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP) and plaque accumulation (PCR) during 3 years of loading as well as recording of any adverse effects. In addition to descriptive statistics, statistical analysis has been performed for the two treatment modalities using a non-parametric approach. RESULTS: In 101 patients, 137 implants were placed. At the 3-year follow-up (FU-3), 94 patients with 129 implants were re-examined. The implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. MBL at FU-3 was 0.45 mm (GG) and 0.44 mm (GS) (p > 0.05). A statistically significant loss of MBL was observed in both GG (-0.43 ± 0.58 mm) and GS (-0.44 ± 0.56 mm) from IP to FU-3, and from PR to FU-3 in GG (-0.25 ± 0.58 mm) but not in GS (-0.1 ± 0.54 mm). PCR and BoP at FU-3 did not show any difference between the groups but for PPD (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, implants with a length of 6 mm as well as longer implants in combination with a lateral sinus lift may be considered as a treatment option provided a residual ridge height of 5-7 mm in the atrophied posterior maxilla is present.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Implantes Dentales / Diseño de Prótesis Dental / Elevación del Piso del Seno Maxilar Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Periodontol Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Austria

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Implantes Dentales / Diseño de Prótesis Dental / Elevación del Piso del Seno Maxilar Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Periodontol Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Austria