Cargando…

Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla

OBJECTIVES: the aim of this clinical study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of short dental implants inserted in pristine bone to standard length implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this clinical study, the clinical and radiologica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schiegnitz, Eik, Hill, Nina, Sagheb, Keyvan, König, Jochem, Sagheb, Kawe, Al-Nawas, Bilal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: University of Zagreb School of Dental Medicine, and Croatian Dental Society - Croatian Medical Association 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9262115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35821724
http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc56/2/5
_version_ 1784742422054436864
author Schiegnitz, Eik
Hill, Nina
Sagheb, Keyvan
König, Jochem
Sagheb, Kawe
Al-Nawas, Bilal
author_facet Schiegnitz, Eik
Hill, Nina
Sagheb, Keyvan
König, Jochem
Sagheb, Kawe
Al-Nawas, Bilal
author_sort Schiegnitz, Eik
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: the aim of this clinical study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of short dental implants inserted in pristine bone to standard length implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this clinical study, the clinical and radiological outcome of 126 short dental implants (84 patients), inserted in pristine bone were compared with 312 standard length implants (156 patients), placed in combination with maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures. RESULTS: The short implant group (test group [TG]; mean follow-up (± standard deviation (SD) 56.6 ± 42.9 months) and the augmented group (control group [CG]; mean follow-up 41.6 ± 37.6 months) showed cumulative survival rates of 91.8% and 92.4%. Cumulative 5-year implant survival rates were 91.8% for the TG and 90.7% for the CG (p=0.421). Mean marginal bone loss was significantly higher in the CG than in the TG, with a mean MBL of 0.70 ± 0.72 mm in the TG and 0.96 ± 0.91 mm in the CG (p<0.001). A comparable and promising oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was observed in the control and test groups. CONCLUSIONS: After over 3 years, short implants placed in the resorbed posterior maxilla obtained similar results to standard implants combined with maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9262115
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher University of Zagreb School of Dental Medicine, and Croatian Dental Society - Croatian Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92621152022-07-11 Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla Schiegnitz, Eik Hill, Nina Sagheb, Keyvan König, Jochem Sagheb, Kawe Al-Nawas, Bilal Acta Stomatol Croat Original Scientific Papers OBJECTIVES: the aim of this clinical study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of short dental implants inserted in pristine bone to standard length implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this clinical study, the clinical and radiological outcome of 126 short dental implants (84 patients), inserted in pristine bone were compared with 312 standard length implants (156 patients), placed in combination with maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures. RESULTS: The short implant group (test group [TG]; mean follow-up (± standard deviation (SD) 56.6 ± 42.9 months) and the augmented group (control group [CG]; mean follow-up 41.6 ± 37.6 months) showed cumulative survival rates of 91.8% and 92.4%. Cumulative 5-year implant survival rates were 91.8% for the TG and 90.7% for the CG (p=0.421). Mean marginal bone loss was significantly higher in the CG than in the TG, with a mean MBL of 0.70 ± 0.72 mm in the TG and 0.96 ± 0.91 mm in the CG (p<0.001). A comparable and promising oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was observed in the control and test groups. CONCLUSIONS: After over 3 years, short implants placed in the resorbed posterior maxilla obtained similar results to standard implants combined with maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedures. University of Zagreb School of Dental Medicine, and Croatian Dental Society - Croatian Medical Association 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9262115/ /pubmed/35821724 http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc56/2/5 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 License.
spellingShingle Original Scientific Papers
Schiegnitz, Eik
Hill, Nina
Sagheb, Keyvan
König, Jochem
Sagheb, Kawe
Al-Nawas, Bilal
Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla
title Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla
title_full Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla
title_fullStr Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla
title_full_unstemmed Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla
title_short Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla
title_sort short versus standard length implants with sinus floor elevation for the atrophic posterior maxilla
topic Original Scientific Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9262115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35821724
http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc56/2/5
work_keys_str_mv AT schiegnitzeik shortversusstandardlengthimplantswithsinusfloorelevationfortheatrophicposteriormaxilla
AT hillnina shortversusstandardlengthimplantswithsinusfloorelevationfortheatrophicposteriormaxilla
AT saghebkeyvan shortversusstandardlengthimplantswithsinusfloorelevationfortheatrophicposteriormaxilla
AT konigjochem shortversusstandardlengthimplantswithsinusfloorelevationfortheatrophicposteriormaxilla
AT saghebkawe shortversusstandardlengthimplantswithsinusfloorelevationfortheatrophicposteriormaxilla
AT alnawasbilal shortversusstandardlengthimplantswithsinusfloorelevationfortheatrophicposteriormaxilla