Short (6 mm) and Regular Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla-7-Years Follow-up Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hadzik J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7957497 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectives: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to assess the performance of short implants in comparison with standard implants and sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla. Materials and methods: The protocol of the study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022375320). An electronic search on three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) was performed to find randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with ≥5 years' follow-up, published until December 2022. Risk of bias (ROB) was calculated using Cochrane ROB. A meta-analysis was performed for primary (implant survival rate, ISR) and secondary outcomes (marginal bone loss, MBL; biological and prosthetic complications). Results: Of 1619 articles, 5 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The ISR showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.97 [0.94, 1.00] (CI 95%), p = 0.07. The MBL indicated a WMD of -0.29 [-0.49, -0.09] (CI 95%), p = 0.005. Biological complications showed a RR of 0.46 [0.23, 0.91] (CI 95%), p = 0.03. Prosthetic complications showed a RR of 1.51 [0.64, 3.55] (CI 95%), p = 0.34. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that short implants might be used as an alternative to standard implants and sinus floor elevation. After 5 years, in terms of ISR, standard implants and sinus floor elevation showed a higher survival rate comparted to short implants, although statistical significance was not achieved. Future RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to draw a clear conclusion on the advantages of one method over another.
| S-EPMC9960634 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC6830603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chemical modifications of the dental implant surface that improve the wettability result in a faster and better osseointegration. PURPOSE:The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the implant stability quotient (ISQ) of implants with similar designs, treated with 2 surfaces, sandblasted acid-etched (SAE) and hydrophilic SAE, within the initial 16 weeks of healing. MATERIAL AND METHODS:A total of 64 implants (32 SAE-control group and 32 modified SAE-test group) with the same design, length, and diameter (conical and compressive, 4.3 × 10 mm) were inserted into the posterior maxillae of 21 patients partially edentulous. The ISQ values were collected at post-surgery (T0), 1 week (T1), 2 weeks (T2), 3 weeks (T3), 5 weeks (T4), 8 weeks (T5), 12 weeks (T6), and 16 weeks (T7). RESULTS:None of the implants failed. Test group presented ISQ values higher than the control group (ANOVA-P?<?.01) from T5 to T7. When comparing groups regarding the amount of time required to achieve ISQ???70 as a reference, there was a statistically significant difference (cox regression-P?<?.01), and a hazard ratio of 2.24 (CI 1.62-3.11). At the 1-year follow-up, there was a drop out of 1 patient, and 2 implants were no longer evaluated. Survival rate for both groups was 100% at the 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:The current study suggests that implants with hydrophilic surface (modified SAE) integrate faster than implants with SAE surface. The stability gain of the test group was 2.24 times faster than the control group after 5 weeks of evaluation at the posterior region of the edentulous maxillae.
| S-EPMC5655931 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC4518682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe 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 methodsNinety-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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionThe clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm short and 11-mm standard-length implants were not different during a 5-year evaluation period.
| S-EPMC7821315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMentor MemoryGel Breast Implants were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November of 2006. Patients in the Core clinical study supporting this approval were followed for 10 years.MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, clinical study included primary augmentation, revision augmentation, primary reconstruction, and revision reconstruction patients implanted with smooth or Siltex Texture MemoryGel Implants. Incidence, severity, and method of resolution for all postoperative complications were assessed on per-patient and per-implant bases. The primary effectiveness endpoints were overall mean change in chest circumference and bra cup size following the implantation procedure.ResultsPrimary augmentation (n = 552), revision augmentation (n = 145), primary reconstruction (n = 251), and revision reconstruction (n = 60) patients were enrolled in the study. Kaplan-Meier estimated 10-year cumulative incidence rates for key complications at the subject level for Baker grade III/IV capsular contracture were as follows: primary augmentation, 12.1 percent; revision augmentation, 24.4 percent; primary reconstruction, 20.5 percent; and revision reconstruction, 36.9 percent. For infection, rates were as follows: primary augmentation, 1.6 percent; revision augmentation, 1.4 percent; primary reconstruction, 6.2 percent; and revision reconstruction, 0 percent. For explantation with or without replacement, rates were as follows: primary augmentation, 11.6 percent; revision augmentation, 24.1 percent; primary reconstruction, 33.4 percent; and revision reconstruction; 37.8 percent. For rupture, rates were as follows: primary augmentation, 24.2 percent; revision augmentation, 23.7 percent; primary reconstruction, 32.7 percent; and revision reconstruction, 38.7 percent. For any reoperation, rates were as follows: primary augmentation, 25.5 percent; revision augmentation, 43.6 percent; primary reconstruction, 49.0 percent; and revision reconstruction, 50.7 percent.ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrate that MemoryGel Implants are safe and effective for use in women undergoing breast augmentation or reconstruction.Clinical question/level of evidenceTherapeutic, IV.
| S-EPMC7899226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Several study that evaluate the usage of peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament reconstruction shows good result. Regardless the potential, there was no study about the use of PLT autograft in Posterior Cruciate Ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the functional outcome and donor site morbidity after single bundle PCL reconstruction using PLT autograft. Methods:Patient who met inclusion criteria, enrolled to this study and underwent single bundle PCL reconstruction using PL tendon autograft. Clinical outcomes were assessed with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Modified Cincinnati scoring systems, Lysholm score, and Serial hop test (single hop test and triple hop test) 2-year after surgery. Donor site morbidity was assessed with Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle (AOFAS) scoring system. Results:Fifteen patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (11 males and 4 females). PLT graft diameters were 7.5-10?mm (mean: 8.30?±?0.65?mm). Significant increase of functional score (p?<?0.05) were found two years after surgery. Mean score of IKDC was 47.58?±?11.75 pre-operative; 78.17?±?4.52 post-operative, Modified Cincinnati was 48.86?±?12.22 pre-operative; 79.00?±?4.82 post-operative, Lysholm score was 49.26?±?11.54 pre-operative; 80.20?±?5.04 post-operative. FADI and AOFAS at donor site ankle was 93.00?±?3.04 and 93.26?±?4.20, respectively. Serial hop test showed good result. Conclusion:PCL reconstruction using peroneus longus tendon autograft shows good functional outcome of the knee based on IKDC, Modified Cincinnati, Lysholm score, with preservation of ankle function based on AOFAS and FADI score at 2-years follow-up.
| S-EPMC6551477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The present study was conducted to investigate whether a different implant neck design could affect survival rate and peri-implant tissue health in a cohort of disease-free partially edentulous patients in the molar-premolar region. The investigation was conducted on 122 dental implants inserted in 97 patients divided into two groups: Group A (rough wide-neck implants) vs. Group B (rough reduced-neck implants). All patients were monitored through clinical and radiological checkups. Survival rate, probing depth, and marginal bone loss were assessed at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Patients assigned to Group A received 59 implants, while patients assigned to Group B 63. Dental implants were placed by following a delayed loading protocol, and cemented metal-ceramic crowns were delivered to the patients. The survival rates for both Group A and B were acceptable and similar at the two-year follow-up (96.61% vs. 95.82%). Probing depth and marginal bone loss tended to increase over time (follow-up: t1 = 12 vs. t2 = 24 months) in both groups of patients. Probing depth (p = 0.015) and bone loss (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Group A (3.01 vs. 3.23 mm and .92 vs. 1.06 mm; Group A vs. Group B). Within the limitations of the present study, patients with rough wide-neck implants showed less marginal bone loss and minor probing depth, as compared to rough reduced-neck implants placed in the molar-premolar region. These results might be further replicated through longer-term trials, as well as comparisons between more collar configurations (e.g., straight vs. reduced vs. wide collars).
| S-EPMC7084739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: - 0.22, CI - 0.277 to - 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI - 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).
| S-EPMC8047002 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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. 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. 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. 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. 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).
| S-EPMC8038839 | biostudies-literature