Dataset Information

Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm or 11-mm implants, placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible, during a 5-year follow-up period.

Materials and methods

Ninety-five patients with adequate bone height for 11-mm implants, were randomly allocated to a 6-mm group (test group with short implants) or an 11-mm group (control group with standard-length implants). Two or three implants of the same length were placed in each patient and after 6 weeks loaded with a splinted provisional restoration. This was followed by definitive splinted restoration 6 months after implant placement. Clinical and radiographic parameters, including the occurrence of complications were recorded.

Results

A total of 49 patients were enrolled to receive 6-mm implants (n = 108) and 46 patients to receive 11-mm implants (n = 101). Three implants (two of 6 mm and one of 11 mm in length) were lost before loading and one 6-mm implant after 15 months of function, and one 11-mm implant was lost during the first year of function. The 5-year survival rates were 96.0% and 98.9% in the 6-mm and 11-mm group, respectively. The mean marginal bone level changes 5 years post-loading were 0.01 ± 0.45 mm (bone gain) in the 6-mm group and -0.12 ± 0.93 mm (bone loss) in the 11-mm group (p = .7670). Clinical parameters, including plaque, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth were not significantly different between the groups, and also technical complications were low.

Conclusion

The clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm short and 11-mm standard-length implants were not different during a 5-year evaluation period.

SUBMITTER: Gulje FL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7821315 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Guljé Felix L FL Meijer Henny J A HJA Abrahamsson Ingemar I Barwacz Christopher A CA Chen Stephen S Palmer Paul J PJ Zadeh Homayoun H Stanford Clark M CM

Clinical oral implants research 20201023 1

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm or 11-mm implants, placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible, during a 5-year follow-up period.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Ninety-five patients with adequate bone height for 11-mm implants, were randomly allocated to a 6-mm group (test group with short implants) or an 11-mm group (control group with standard-length implants). Two or three implants of the s ...[more]

PMID: 33025645

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.Materials and methodsBased on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient-related outcome measurements. Meta-analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random-effect meta-analyses.ResultsEight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement-retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0-61.0 months). Meta-analyses estimated a 5-year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%-100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%-100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%-100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%-100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%-11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%-54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%-76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.ConclusionsDue to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All-ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid-term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.

Project description:Nowadays, short dental implants are being increasingly applied in extremely resorbed posterior regions. The recent studies have indicated that short implants present a similar success rate to conventional implants. It is assumed that short implants can avoid additional surgical morbidity and are less technically demanding. However, high-quality evidence (? Ib: evidence from at least one randomized controlled trial) on comparing the clinical outcome of short implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) technique is limited.The proposed study is designed as a prospective single-center, three-arm parallel group, randomized controlled trial. We plan to enroll 150 patients in need of dental implant treatment in the posterior maxilla. The inclusion criteria include: age ? 18 years, partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla for at least 3 months from tooth loss, residual bone height ranging from 6 to 8 mm, sufficient bone width (? 6 mm) in the edentulous region. The patients will be divided into three groups according to a table of random numbers: group 1: short implants (6 mm) alone; group 2: short implants (8 mm) combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE); group 3: standard implants (10 mm) combined with OSFE. The assignment will be concealed from the clinical operators until the beginning of implant surgery. The outcome examiners and patients will be kept blinded to the assignment. Implant survival rates, implant success rates, complications, resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measurements, marginal bone level, treatment time and patient-reported outcome (visual analogue scale for intraoperative discomfort and postoperative pain) will be recorded. Clinical re-evaluations will be performed at 12, 24, 36 and 60 months after crown placement.The results of the trial will support better decision-making for dental implant treatment in atrophic maxillary ridges. If favorable, the use of short implants may avoid adjunct procedures used for implant insertion, thus reducing operative time, complexity and postoperative discomfort.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02350075 (registered on 17 February 2015).

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (?6?mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (?10?mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (?6?mm) and longer implants (?10?mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1-3?years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95%?CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3?years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95%?CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (?6?mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1-3?years follow-up (MD=-0.13?mm, 95%?CI -0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3?years or longer follow-up (MD=-0.25?mm, 95%?CI -0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (?6?mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95%?CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95%?CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (?6?mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (?6?mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

Project description:Background and Objectives: The use of desensitizing agents (DA) after tooth preparation to prevent hypersensitivity is well documented in the literature. A fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) should have good retention to be successful. Inadequate retention may result in microleakage, secondary caries, and, eventually, dislodgement of the FDP. The effect of DAs on the retention of FDPs has been widely studied in the literature, but the results are conflicting. Thus, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review to assess the effect of dentine desensitizing agents, used to prevent post-cementation hypersensitivity, on the retention of cemented FDPs. The null hypothesis framed was that there is no effect of dentine desensitizing agents on the retention of cemented FDPs. The focused PICO question was as follows: "Does the application of dentine desensitizing agents (I) affect the retention (O) of cemented fixed dental prosthesis (P) when compared to non-dentine desensitizing groups (C)"? Materials and Methods: Four electronic databases were systematically searched and, on the basis of the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 articles were included in this systematic review. A modified CONSORT scale for in vitro studies was used to assess the quality of the selected studies, as all included studies were in vitro studies. Results: Most of the studies compared the effect of more than one type of DA on retention. The results of the selected studies varied due to differences in the composition of tested dentine DAs and types of luting cements. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the retention values of FDPs cemented using zinc phosphate cement were reduced with most of the DAs, whereas retention values increased when GIC, resin-modified GIC, and resin cements were used with the majority of DAs. These findings are important, as they can guide dentists in selecting the DA before cementing the crowns with the luting agent of their choice, without compromising the retention of the crowns.

Project description:This systematic review aimed to study the outcomes of CAD-CAM (milled and 3D-printed) interim dental prostheses when compared to conventional ones. The focused question of "In natural teeth, what are the outcomes of CAD-CAM interim FDPs compared to the conventionally-manufactured ones regarding marginal fit, mechanical properties, esthetics, and color stability" was formulated. The systematic search was conducted electronically in the PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report, and Google Scholar databases by using the MeSH keywords and keywords associated with the focused question and limiting articles to those published between 2000 and 2022. A manual search was conducted in selected dental journals. The results were analyzed qualitatively and are presented in table format. Of the included studies, 18 studies were in vitro and 1 was a randomized clinical trial. Of the eight studies analyzing the mechanical properties, five studies favored the milled interim restorations, one study favored both 3D-printed and milled interim restorations, and two studies reported better mechanical properties in conventional interim restorations. Among four studies evaluating the marginal discrepancies, two studies favored the marginal fit in milled interim restorations, one study reported a better marginal fit in both milled and 3D-printed interim restorations, and one study found conventional interim restorations have a better marginal fit and smaller marginal discrepancy when compared to both milled and 3D-printed restorations. Among five studies that evaluated both the mechanical properties and marginal fit, 1 study favored 3D-printed interim restorations and four studies favored milled interim restorations over the conventional ones. Two studies analyzing the esthetics outcomes demonstrated better results with milled interim restorations compared to conventional and 3D-printed interim restorations in terms of their color stabilities. The risk of bias was low for all the studies reviewed. The high level of heterogeneity within the studies excluded meta-analysis. Most of the studies favored the milled interim restorations over the 3D-printed and conventional restorations. The results suggested that milled interim restorations offer a better marginal fit, higher mechanical properties, and better esthetic outcomes in terms of color stabilities.

Dataset Information

Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets