Short (6 mm) and Regular Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla-7-Years Follow-up Study.

Jakub Hadzik,Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross,Marzena Dominiak,Izabela Nawrot-Hadzik,Artur Pitułaj,Tomasz Gedrange

doi:10.3390/jcm10050940

Jakub Hadzik, Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10050940

Copy DOI

Abstract

Short 6 mm dental implants are considered as an alternative to the maxillary sinus elevation and bone augmentation procedure where there is a reduced alveolar ridge height. The aim of this study was to compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants (6 mm) and regular length implants (11–13 mm) when placed in combination with bone grafting and loaded with a single non splinted crown, seven years after placing the implant. It was conducted as a controlled clinical study of 30 patients with partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla. The protocol included radiological and clinical evaluation of the C/I ratio (length of the superstructure divided by the length of the implant crestal part), marginal bone level (MBL), ultrasonography measurement of soft tissue surrounding implant (STT), patient-reported outcomes, and biological and technical complications. A total number of 28 implants (93%) remained integrated during follow-up period. MBL of 0.50 and 0.52 mm was observed for short implants and regular implants, respectively. MBL was checked for correlation with STT, and a negative correlation was found between MBL: STT. Our study has demonstrated a significantly lower implant survival rate for short implants compared to regular implants (87% compared to 100%). Despite the loss of several implants, good clinical results were achieved in the remaining implants in both groups. It is, therefore, worth considering short implants as an alternative to regular implants with a sinus lift surgery.

Highlights

Implant treatment can be performed in the edentulous maxilla only when there is an adequate amount and good quality of bone tissue
The study protocol of the original randomized controlled study (RCT) was approved by a local ethical committee and conducted in 2012–2013 the RCT as a clinical trial was registered under the clinical trial registration number NCT03471000 (ClinicalTrials.gov)
Two short implants were lost in the short implant group between year 5 and 7, contrary to all regular implants that remained in place

Summary

Introduction

Implant treatment can be performed in the edentulous maxilla only when there is an adequate amount and good quality of bone tissue. First described by Boyne and James, has been redesigned by Tatum [4,5]. This technique creates additional space between the maxillary alveolar process and the elevated Schneiderian membrane which is filled with various graft materials to maintain adequate space for new bone formation [6]. Up to the present day, many modifications using different materials and techniques have been described, high skills of the operator are still required and a number of complications may still occur, including a higher risk of surgical site infections, graft failure, and post-operative sinusitis [7,8,9,10]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion