Premium
Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11–15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 5‐Year data
Author(s) -
Thoma Daniel S.,
Haas Robert,
SporniakTutak Katarzyna,
Garcia Abel,
Taylor Thomas D.,
Hämmerle Christoph H. F.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/jcpe.13025
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , implant , maxillary sinus , survival rate , bone grafting , maxilla , implant failure , dental implant , osseointegration , surgery
Aim To compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants and standard length implants placed in combination with bone grafting at 5 years of loading. Methods This multicentre study enrolled 101 patients (137 implants) with a posterior maxillary bone height of 5–7 mm. Patients randomly received either short implants (6 mm; GS ) or long implants (11–15 mm) with sinus grafting ( GG ). Six months later, implants were loaded with single crowns and patients re‐examined at 1, 3 and 5 years of loading. Outcomes included: implant survival, marginal bone levels ( MBL s), biological and technical parameters and patient‐reported outcome measures ( OHIP ‐49 = Oral Health Impact Profile). Statistical analysis was performed using a non‐parametric approach. Results At 5 years, 90 patients (124 implants; GS : 60; GG : 64) were re‐examined (drop‐out rate 10%). Patient‐level implant survival rates were 98.5% ( GS ; 1 implant failure) and 100% ( GG ; p = 0.49). Mean MBL s were 0.54 mm ± 0.87 ( GS ) and 0.46 mm ± 1.00 ( GG ; p = 0.34). Biological and technical parameters were not significantly different ( p > 0.05). Median overall OHIP ‐49 scores improved significantly up to 5 years in both groups ( GS : p = 0.03; GG : p = 0.00; intergroup comparison p = 0.11). Conclusions Both treatment modalities were suitable for implant therapy in the atrophied posterior maxilla revealing no differences in terms of survival rates, marginal bone levels (changes), patient‐reported outcomes and technical/biological complications.