Cargando…

Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to test the H0-hypothesis of no difference in the clinical and radiographical treatment outcome of single-crown restorations supported by short implants compared with standard length implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSF...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nielsen, Helle Baungaard, Schou, Søren, Bruun, Niels Henrik, Starch-Jensen, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8282885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34268630
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00348-5
_version_ 1783723086139359232
author Nielsen, Helle Baungaard
Schou, Søren
Bruun, Niels Henrik
Starch-Jensen, Thomas
author_facet Nielsen, Helle Baungaard
Schou, Søren
Bruun, Niels Henrik
Starch-Jensen, Thomas
author_sort Nielsen, Helle Baungaard
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to test the H0-hypothesis of no difference in the clinical and radiographical treatment outcome of single-crown restorations supported by short implants compared with standard length implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) after 1 year of functional implant loading. Forty patients with partial edentulism in the posterior part of the maxilla were randomly allocated to treatment involving single-crown restorations supported by short implants or standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. Clinical and radiographical evaluation were used to assess survival of suprastructures and implants, peri-implant marginal bone loss (PIMBL), biological, and mechanical complications. RESULTS: Both treatment modalities were characterized by 100% survival of suprastructures and implants after 1 year. Mean PIMBL was 0.60 mm with short implants compared with 0.51 mm with standard length implants after 1 year of functional loading. There were no statistically significant differences in survival of suprastructure and implants, PIMBL, and mechanical complications between the two treatment modalities. However, a higher incidence of biological complications was associated with standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that single-crown restorations supported by short implants seems to be comparable with standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. However, long-term studies are needed before final conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.Gov ID: NCT04518020. Date of registration: August 14, 2020, retrospectively registered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8282885
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82828852021-07-20 Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial Nielsen, Helle Baungaard Schou, Søren Bruun, Niels Henrik Starch-Jensen, Thomas Int J Implant Dent Research BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to test the H0-hypothesis of no difference in the clinical and radiographical treatment outcome of single-crown restorations supported by short implants compared with standard length implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) after 1 year of functional implant loading. Forty patients with partial edentulism in the posterior part of the maxilla were randomly allocated to treatment involving single-crown restorations supported by short implants or standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. Clinical and radiographical evaluation were used to assess survival of suprastructures and implants, peri-implant marginal bone loss (PIMBL), biological, and mechanical complications. RESULTS: Both treatment modalities were characterized by 100% survival of suprastructures and implants after 1 year. Mean PIMBL was 0.60 mm with short implants compared with 0.51 mm with standard length implants after 1 year of functional loading. There were no statistically significant differences in survival of suprastructure and implants, PIMBL, and mechanical complications between the two treatment modalities. However, a higher incidence of biological complications was associated with standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that single-crown restorations supported by short implants seems to be comparable with standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. However, long-term studies are needed before final conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.Gov ID: NCT04518020. Date of registration: August 14, 2020, retrospectively registered. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8282885/ /pubmed/34268630 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00348-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Nielsen, Helle Baungaard
Schou, Søren
Bruun, Niels Henrik
Starch-Jensen, Thomas
Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_full Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_fullStr Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_short Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial
title_sort single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8282885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34268630
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00348-5
work_keys_str_mv AT nielsenhellebaungaard singlecrownrestorationssupportedbyshortimplants6mmcomparedwithstandardlengthimplants13mminconjunctionwithmaxillarysinusflooraugmentationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT schousøren singlecrownrestorationssupportedbyshortimplants6mmcomparedwithstandardlengthimplants13mminconjunctionwithmaxillarysinusflooraugmentationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT bruunnielshenrik singlecrownrestorationssupportedbyshortimplants6mmcomparedwithstandardlengthimplants13mminconjunctionwithmaxillarysinusflooraugmentationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT starchjensenthomas singlecrownrestorationssupportedbyshortimplants6mmcomparedwithstandardlengthimplants13mminconjunctionwithmaxillarysinusflooraugmentationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial