Cargando…
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
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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Stilus Optimus
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225597/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30429964 http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2018.9304 |
_version_ | 1783369812062240768 |
---|---|
author | Svezia, Luigi Casotto, Filippo |
author_facet | Svezia, Luigi Casotto, Filippo |
author_sort | Svezia, Luigi |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6225597 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Stilus Optimus |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62255972018-11-14 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 Svezia, Luigi Casotto, Filippo J Oral Maxillofac Res Original Paper 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. Stilus Optimus 2018-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6225597/ /pubmed/30429964 http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2018.9304 Text en Copyright © Svezia L, Casotto F. Published in the JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL RESEARCH (http://www.ejomr.org), 30 September 2018. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open-access article, first published in the JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL RESEARCH, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 UnportedLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work and is properly cited. The copyright, license information and link to the original publication on (http://www.ejomr.org) must be included. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Svezia, Luigi Casotto, Filippo 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 |
title | 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 |
title_full | 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 |
title_fullStr | 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 |
title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
title_short | 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 |
title_sort | 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 |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225597/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30429964 http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2018.9304 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT svezialuigi shortdentalimplants6mmversusstandarddentalimplants10mmsupportingsinglecrownsintheposteriormaxillaandormandible2yearresultsfromaprospectivecohortcomparativetrial AT casottofilippo shortdentalimplants6mmversusstandarddentalimplants10mmsupportingsinglecrownsintheposteriormaxillaandormandible2yearresultsfromaprospectivecohortcomparativetrial |