Two short implants versus one short implant with a cantilever: 5-Year results of a randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To test whether or not the use of a short implant with a cantilever results in similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants with single tooth reconstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with two adjacent missing teeth in the posterior region were randomly assigned to receive either a single 6-mm implant with a cantilever (ONE-C) or two 6-mm implants (TWO). Fixed reconstructions were inserted 3-6 months after implant placement and patients were re-examined up to 5 years (FU-5). RESULTS: A total of 26 patients were available for re-examination at FU-5. The survival rate amounted to 84.2% in ONE-C and to 80.4% in TWO (inter-group: p = .894). Technical complication rates amounted to 64.2% (ONE-C) and to 54.4% (TWO) (inter-group: p = 1.000). From baseline to FU-5, the median changes of the marginal bone levels were 0.13 mm in ONE-C and 0.05 mm in TWO (inter-group: p = .775). Probing depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque control record values showed no significant differences between the two treatment modalities (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Short implants with a cantilever render similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants at 5 years, however, they tend to fail at earlier time points suggesting an overload of the implants. Considering the modest survival rates, the clinical indication of either treatment option needs to be carefully evaluated. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01649531).

Radiographic density changes may be associated with overloading and implant loss on short implants: A 5-year analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze changes in radiographic bone density around short implants with and without cantilevers at 5 years post-loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with two adjacent posterior missing teeth participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. All patients were randomly allocated to receive either two short implants (6 mm) with single-unit restorations (group TWO) or one single short implant (6 mm) with a cantilever restoration (group ONE-C). Patients were followed up at 6 months, 1, 3, and 5 years. Radiographic analysis was performed, through an arbitrary gray scale value (GSV) of the peri-implant bone, assessing the changes in radiographic density between groups and between time points. Differences in GSV between groups and over time were calculated using a generalized estimating equation to allow for adjustments for the correlation within individuals and between time points. RESULTS: At 5 years, 26 patients remained in the study (15 in group ONE-C; 11 in group TWO). Implant survival rates were 80.4% in group TWO and 84.2% in group ONE-C (p = 0.894). The radiographic analysis revealed that GSVs increased in both groups over time (p < 0.001). The overall radiographic density was higher in group ONE-C than in group TWO in the maxilla (p = 0.030). Conversely, in the mandible, these significant differences between the groups were not found (p > 0.05). Compared to the implants that survived, the implants that failed demonstrated a distinct radiographic density pattern (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study, the radiographic bone density in the maxilla appears to increase distinctly around short implants when cantilevers are used. In contrast, the radiographic density in the mandible appears to be unaffected by the use of a cantilever, suggesting a lower threshold of adaptation to occlusal forces and thus a higher susceptibility to overload and implant loss at earlier time points.