A 5-year randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 4-mm ultrashort to longer implants placed in regenerated bone in the posterior atrophic jaw.
posterior jaws
short implants
vertical bone atrophy
Journal
Clinical implant dentistry and related research
ISSN: 1708-8208
Titre abrégé: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888977
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
revised:
27
10
2021
received:
19
07
2021
accepted:
10
12
2021
pubmed:
13
1
2022
medline:
1
3
2022
entrez:
12
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Short implants (up to 5-mm long) have shown good results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented bone. To evaluate if 4-mm ultrashort implants could also be an alternative to bone augmentation in the severely atrophic posterior jaws. The primary aim of the study was to compare implant survival rates between study groups. Eighty partially edentulous patients with posterior atrophic jaws (5-6 mm of bone above the mandibular canal and 4-5 mm below the maxillary sinus) were included: 40 patients in the maxilla and 40 in mandible. The patients were randomized to receive one to three 4-mm ultrashort implants or one to three implants at least 10-mm long in augmented bone. Results are reported 5 years after loading with the following outcome measures: implant and prosthetic failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes. Thirty-two complications were reported for the control group in 18 patients versus 13 complications in 10 patients in the test group, the difference being not statistically significant (p = 0.103). In the augmented group, 12 implants failed in 6 patients versus 7 short implants in 6 cases, and 9 prostheses failed in the control group while 4 in the test one, without statistically significant differences (p = 1.000 and 0.363, respectively). At 5 years after loading, short implants lost on average 0.58 ± 0.40 mm of peri-implant marginal bone and long implants 0.99 ± 0.58 mm, the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.006). Four-millimeter ultrashort implants showed similar if not better results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented jaws 5 years after loading. For this reason, their use could be in specific cases preferable to bone augmentation since the treatment is less invasive, faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity. However, longer follow-ups and larger trials are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Short implants (up to 5-mm long) have shown good results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented bone.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate if 4-mm ultrashort implants could also be an alternative to bone augmentation in the severely atrophic posterior jaws. The primary aim of the study was to compare implant survival rates between study groups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Eighty partially edentulous patients with posterior atrophic jaws (5-6 mm of bone above the mandibular canal and 4-5 mm below the maxillary sinus) were included: 40 patients in the maxilla and 40 in mandible. The patients were randomized to receive one to three 4-mm ultrashort implants or one to three implants at least 10-mm long in augmented bone. Results are reported 5 years after loading with the following outcome measures: implant and prosthetic failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-two complications were reported for the control group in 18 patients versus 13 complications in 10 patients in the test group, the difference being not statistically significant (p = 0.103). In the augmented group, 12 implants failed in 6 patients versus 7 short implants in 6 cases, and 9 prostheses failed in the control group while 4 in the test one, without statistically significant differences (p = 1.000 and 0.363, respectively). At 5 years after loading, short implants lost on average 0.58 ± 0.40 mm of peri-implant marginal bone and long implants 0.99 ± 0.58 mm, the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Four-millimeter ultrashort implants showed similar if not better results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented jaws 5 years after loading. For this reason, their use could be in specific cases preferable to bone augmentation since the treatment is less invasive, faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity. However, longer follow-ups and larger trials are needed.
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Retracted Publication
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4-12Subventions
Organisme : Global D (Brignais, France)
Organisme : OsteoBiol (Tecnoss, Giaveno, Italy)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : RetractionIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:237-259.
Urban IA, Montero E, Monje A, Sanz-Sánchez I. Effectiveness of vertical ridge augmentation interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46:319-339. doi:10.1111/jcpe.13061
Stellingsma K, Raghoebar GM, Visser A, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. The extremely resorbed mandible, 10-year results of a randomized controlled trial on 3 treatment strategies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(8):926-932. doi:10.1111/clr.12184
Iezzi G, Perrotti V, Felice P, Barausse C, Piattelli A, Del Fabbro M. Are <7-mm long implants in native bone as effective as longer implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(5):552-566. doi:10.1111/cid.12946
Bolle C, Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli V, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Esposito M. 4 mm long vs longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic jaws: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(1):31-47.
Magdy M, Abdelkader MA, Alloush S, et al. Ultra-short versus standard-length dental implants in conjunction with osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23(4):520-529. doi:10.1111/cid.12995
Guljé FL, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Single crowns in the resorbed posterior maxilla supported by either 11-mm implants combined with sinus floor elevation or 6-mm implants: a 5-year randomised controlled trial. Int J Oral Implantol. 2019;12(3):315-326.
Taschieri S, Lolato A, Testori T, Francetti L, Del Fabbro M. Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: three-year results of a randomized clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20(1):9-20. doi:10.1111/cid.12563
Shi JY, Li Y, Qiao SC, Gu YX, Xiong YY, Lai HC. Short versus longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation for moderately atrophic posterior maxillae: A 1-year randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(8):855-862. doi:10.1111/jcpe.13147
Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: result at 8 years after loading from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(4):385-395.
Ravidà A, Wang IC, Barootchi S, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing clinical and patient-reported outcomes between extra-short (≤6 mm) and longer (≥10 mm) implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(1):118-142. doi:10.1111/jcpe.13026
Nisand D, Picard N, Rocchietta I. Short implants compared to implants in vertically augmented bone: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:170-179. doi:10.1111/clr.12632
Sluka B, Naenni N, Jung RE, Attin T, Schmidlin PR, Sahrmann P. Changes of radiopacity around implants of different lengths: five-year follow-up data of a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(5):488-494. doi:10.1111/clr.13584
Ravidà A, Barootchi S, Alkanderi A, Tavelli L, Suárez-López Del Amo F. The effect of crown-to-implant ratio on the clinical outcomes of dental implants: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(5):1121-1131. doi:10.11607/jomi.7355
Meijer HJA, Boven C, Delli K, Raghoebar GM. Is there an effect of crown-to-implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:243-252. doi:10.1111/clr.13338
Tang Y, Yu H, Wang J, Gao M, Qiu L. Influence of crown-to-implant ratio and different prosthetic designs on the clinical conditions of short implants in posterior regions: A 4-year retrospective clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(1):119-127. doi:10.1111/cid.12881
Felice P, Checchi L, Barausse C, et al. Posterior jaws rehabilitated with partial prostheses supported by 4.0 x 4.0 mm or by longer implants: One-year post-loading results from a multicenter randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9(1):35-45.
Guljé FL, Meijer HJA, Abrahamsson I, et al. Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32(1):15-22. doi:10.1111/clr.13674