Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial
Open Access
- 6 April 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by MDPI AG in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Vol. 18 (7) , 3846
Abstract
Background: In edentulous patients, bone resorption cannot allow the installation of standard implants and it is demanded to use short implants in the residual alveolar bone or longer implants in grafted bone. Aim: To compare the survival and bone level changes of standard plus short 4-mm implants used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with standard (10-mm) implants placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure. Material and Methods: Full-arch FDPs supported by six implants were randomly placed in both groups. In the control group, all implants were 10 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. The distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was installed after 4 months from bilaterally sinus floor elevation. In the test group (short group), the distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was 4 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. No sinus floor elevations were performed in the test group. Clinical assessments and X-rays were taken at prosthesis delivering and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also evaluated before surgery and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Results: The changes over time of the bone level for the short implants were −0.01 ± 0.11 mm, −0.04 ± 0.13 mm, −0.17 ± 0.29 mm, and −0.28 ± 0.37 mm after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from prosthesis delivering, respectively. For the standard implants, bone changes were −0.21 ± 0.33 mm (p = 0.103), −0.30 ± 0.32 mm (p = 0.023), −0.40 ± 0.37 mm (p = 0.144), and −0.54 ± 0.49 mm (p = 0.128), respectively. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups. Conclusions: Similar results on implant survival rate and marginal bone loss were observed for the short and standard implants, placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure, used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch FDP. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups (p = 0.023).Keywords
Funding Information
- ITI Foundation (1049-2014)
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11–15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 5‐Year dataJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2018
- 4 mm long vs longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic jaws: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial2018
- Four mm-long versus longer implants in augmented bone in atrophic posterior jaws: 4-month post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.2016
- Evaluation of extrashort 4‐mm implants in mandibular edentulous patients with reduced bone height in comparison with standard implants: a 12‐month resultsClinical Oral Implants Research, 2015
- EAO Supplement Working Group 4 – EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic reviewClinical Oral Implants Research, 2015
- Vertical Guided Bone Regeneration using Titanium-reinforced d-PTFE Membrane and Prehydrated Corticocancellous Bone GraftThe Open Dentistry Journal, 2014
- Four‐Millimeter‐Long Posterior‐Mandible Implants: 5‐Year Outcomes of a Prospective Multicenter StudyClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2014
- Early loading of 6‐mm‐short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns – a prospective 5‐year cohort studyClinical Oral Implants Research, 2014
- Effectiveness of sinus lift procedures for dental implant rehabilitation: a Cochrane systematic review.2010
- Bleeding on probing. A predictor for the progression of periodontal disease?Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 1986