Cargando…

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

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 u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rossi, Fabio, Tuci, Lorenzo, Ferraioli, Lorenzo, Ricci, Emanuele, Suerica, Andreea, Botticelli, Daniele, Pellegrino, Gerardo, Felice, Pietro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8038839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33917587
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073846
_version_ 1783677468457041920
author Rossi, Fabio
Tuci, Lorenzo
Ferraioli, Lorenzo
Ricci, Emanuele
Suerica, Andreea
Botticelli, Daniele
Pellegrino, Gerardo
Felice, Pietro
author_facet Rossi, Fabio
Tuci, Lorenzo
Ferraioli, Lorenzo
Ricci, Emanuele
Suerica, Andreea
Botticelli, Daniele
Pellegrino, Gerardo
Felice, Pietro
author_sort Rossi, Fabio
collection PubMed
description 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).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8038839
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80388392021-04-12 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 Rossi, Fabio Tuci, Lorenzo Ferraioli, Lorenzo Ricci, Emanuele Suerica, Andreea Botticelli, Daniele Pellegrino, Gerardo Felice, Pietro Int J Environ Res Public Health Article 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). MDPI 2021-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8038839/ /pubmed/33917587 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073846 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Rossi, Fabio
Tuci, Lorenzo
Ferraioli, Lorenzo
Ricci, Emanuele
Suerica, Andreea
Botticelli, Daniele
Pellegrino, Gerardo
Felice, Pietro
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8038839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33917587
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073846
work_keys_str_mv AT rossifabio twoyearfollowupof4mmlongimplantsusedasdistalsupportoffullarchfdpscomparedto10mmimplantsinstalledaftersinusfloorelevationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT tucilorenzo twoyearfollowupof4mmlongimplantsusedasdistalsupportoffullarchfdpscomparedto10mmimplantsinstalledaftersinusfloorelevationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT ferraiolilorenzo twoyearfollowupof4mmlongimplantsusedasdistalsupportoffullarchfdpscomparedto10mmimplantsinstalledaftersinusfloorelevationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT ricciemanuele twoyearfollowupof4mmlongimplantsusedasdistalsupportoffullarchfdpscomparedto10mmimplantsinstalledaftersinusfloorelevationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT suericaandreea twoyearfollowupof4mmlongimplantsusedasdistalsupportoffullarchfdpscomparedto10mmimplantsinstalledaftersinusfloorelevationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT botticellidaniele twoyearfollowupof4mmlongimplantsusedasdistalsupportoffullarchfdpscomparedto10mmimplantsinstalledaftersinusfloorelevationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT pellegrinogerardo twoyearfollowupof4mmlongimplantsusedasdistalsupportoffullarchfdpscomparedto10mmimplantsinstalledaftersinusfloorelevationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT felicepietro twoyearfollowupof4mmlongimplantsusedasdistalsupportoffullarchfdpscomparedto10mmimplantsinstalledaftersinusfloorelevationarandomizedclinicaltrial