« Prev |
2018 Jul-Sep; Vol 9, No 3:e4 |
Next » |
e4 |
Short Dental Implants (6 mm) Versus Standard Dental Implants (10 mm) Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Maxilla and/or Mandible: 2-Year Results from a Prospective Cohort Comparative Trial J Oral Maxillofac Res 2018;9(3):e4 doi:10.5037/jomr.2018.9304 Abstract | HTML | PDF | XML |
Short Dental Implants (6 mm) Versus Standard Dental Implants (10 mm) Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Maxilla and/or Mandible: 2-Year Results from a Prospective Cohort Comparative Trial
1Private practice in Modena, Italy.
2Private practice in Padova, Italy.
Corresponding Author:
Via Contrada 323, 41126, Modena
Italy
Phone: 0039059304869
E-mail: luigi.svezia.dds@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Objectives: The purpose of present study was to compare short (6 mm) with longer implants with the same surface use in the posterior maxilla and/or mandible.
Material and Methods: A total of 110 implants of 6 or 10 mm in length were placed with an internal hex (n = 60) and with a conical connection (n = 50) but the same material, surface and design, supporting single crowns in the posterior maxilla and/or mandible. Outcomes measured were implant survival and marginal bone level changes up to 24 months after loading.
Results: Final group consisted of 105 implants: 6 mm (n = 58) and 10 mm (n = 47). Success rate after 24 months was similar between treatment groups (98.3% vs. 100%; P = 0.361). Failure rates of the short implants in mandible (1/18, 5.6%) and in maxilla (0/40, 0%) were also not significantly different (P = 0.133). Success rate after 2 years was similar between internal hex vs. conical connection implants (100% vs. 97.7%; P = 0.233). Subjects lost statistically significant marginal peri-implant bone in both groups, but without differences (6 mm group: 0.38 mm [95% CI = 0.09 to 0.67] vs. 10 mm group: 0.43 mm [95% CI = 0.15 to 0.61]; P = 0.465 at 24 months), in relation also to type of implant (internal hex vs. conical, P = 0.428 at 24 months) or operator (P = 0.875 at 24 months).
Conclusions: Short implants may be successful in the posterior areas during the first 24 months of loading, with similar outcomes to 10 mm long implants, supporting their use as a valid option in selected cases. However, larger and longer follow-ups of 5 years or more are needed.
J Oral Maxillofac Res 2018;9(3):e4
doi: 10.5037/jomr.2018.9304
Accepted for publication: 28 September 2018
Keywords: dental care for aged; dental implantation; oral surgery; permanent dental restoration.
To cite this article: Short Dental Implants (6 mm) Versus Standard Dental Implants (10 mm) Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Maxilla and/or Mandible: 2-Year Results from a Prospective Cohort Comparative Trial J Oral Maxillofac Res 2018;9(3):e4 URL: http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2018/3/e4/v9n3e4ht.htm |
Received: 11 September 2018 | Accepted: 28 September 2018 | Published: 30 September 2018
Copyright: © The Author(s). Published by JOMR under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence, 2018.