scholarly journals Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 3846
Author(s):  
Fabio Rossi ◽  
Lorenzo Tuci ◽  
Lorenzo Ferraioli ◽  
Emanuele Ricci ◽  
Andreea Suerica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Test Group ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Relevant Difference ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Distal Support ◽  
Augmentation Procedure

Background: 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. Aim: 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. Material and Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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).

scholarly journals Histological, radiological and clinical outcomes of sinus floor elevation using lateral approach pre-/post- extraction of the severe periodontally compromised maxillary molars: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaoguo Yue ◽  
Qi Liu ◽  
Haidong Zhang ◽  
Jingwen Yang ◽  
Yalin Zhan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor

Abstract Background Residual alveolar bone volume is a critical factor for the dental implants’ survival [1]. When the volume of alveolar bone in the posterior maxillary region is less than 4mm, the maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE) with lateral approach is an effective way to solve this problem [2]. Traditionally, this standard approach is usually delivered 4 months after the extraction of the tooth. However, the defective dentition due to the extraction would cause impaired masticatory function during the long period of the bone regeneration, especially when molars on both sides are severely periodontal compromised and need to be extracted. So, as periodontists, we start to wonder if we can maintain a compromised tooth so that we perform the sinus floor elevation before the extraction (the modified MSFE) to take fully advantage of residual strength of the teeth. Methods/Design The proposed study is designed as a prospective single-center, split-mouth design, randomized controlled trial. We plan to recruit 10 patients whose molars on both sides are severely periodontal compromised and in need of dental implant treatment in the atrophied posterior maxilla. The two sides of each patients will be divided into two groups randomly using Randomizer for Clinical Trials (Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical Univ. Graz). Test group: sinus floor augmentation before tooth extraction (the modified MSFE); Control group: sinus floor augmentation after tooth extraction (the standard MSFE). Implant survival rates, mucosal conditions around the implants, complications, treatment time and postoperative discomfort (visual analogue scale for intraoperative pain and postoperative pain/discomfort) will be recorded. The volume of the alveolar bone will be measured 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the MSFE surgery by means of CBCT. Histological and histomorphometic analysis will be performed on biopsies retrieved from both side of grafting sites. Discussion The current study will explore the effectiveness of the modified MSFE on minimizing the discomfort period caused by defected dentition. To determine whether the modified MSFE will promote the grafting outcomes, the quality and the quantity of the osteogenesis on the sinus floor will also be compared. Depending on the result of the current study, we will determine all the protocols and details about the modified MSFE, including indications, detailed methods, post-operational complications and managements.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 940
Author(s):  
Jakub Hadzik ◽  
Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross ◽  
Izabela Nawrot-Hadzik ◽  
Tomasz Gedrange ◽  
Artur Pitułaj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Implant Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Bone Level

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.

scholarly journals Patient‐reported outcomes and complication rates after lateral sinus floor elevation

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (S19) ◽  
pp. 431-431
Author(s):  
Carlo Rengo ◽  
Antonino Fiorino ◽  
Paolo Calamai ◽  
Alessandro Cucchi ◽  
Emanuele Randellini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lateral Sinus ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Sinus Floor

scholarly journals Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e029826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Yan ◽  
Xinyu Wu ◽  
Meiying Su ◽  
Fang Hua ◽  
Bin Shi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Quality Evidence

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).

Use of Implant-Derived Minimally Invasive Sinus Floor Elevation: A Multicenter Clinical Observational Study With 12- to 65-Month Follow-Up

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eitan Mijiritsky ◽  
Horia Barbu ◽  
Adi Lorean ◽  
Izhar Shohat ◽  
Matteo Danza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Sinus Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Dental Clinics ◽  
Average Residual ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Age Range

The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of implant-derived minimally invasive sinus floor elevation. A multicenter retrospective study was performed in 5 dental clinics. Patients requiring sinus augmentation for single implant placement were recorded and followed up. The dental implant used in this trial was a self-tapping endosseous dental implant that contains an internal channel to allow the introduction of liquids through the implant body into the maxillary sinus; those liquids include saline and a flowable bone grafting material. Overall, 37 implants were installed in 37 patients. The age range of the patients was 37–75 years (mean: 51.2 years). The average residual bone height prior to the procedure was 5.24 ± 1 mm. Of all cases, 25 implants replaced the maxillary first molar and 12 replaced the maxillary second premolar. All surgeries were uneventful with no apparent perforation of the sinus membrane. The mean follow-up time was 24.81 ± 13 months ranging from 12 to 65 months. All implants integrated and showed stable marginal bone level. No adverse events were recorded during the follow-up period. The presented method for transcrestal sinus floor elevation procedure can be accomplished using a specially designed dental implant. Further long-term studies are warranted to reaffirm the results of this study.

scholarly journals Histological, radiological, and clinical outcomes of sinus floor elevation using a lateral approach for pre-/post-extraction of the severely compromised maxillary molars: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaoguo Yue ◽  
Qi Liu ◽  
Haidong Zhang ◽  
Jingwen Yang ◽  
Jianxia Hou
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Sinus Floor

Abstract Background The volume of residual alveolar bone is critical to the survival of dental implants. When the volume of alveolar bone in the posterior maxillary region is less than 4 mm, maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE) with the lateral approach is an effective option. Traditionally, this standard approach is usually conducted at 4–6 months after tooth extraction (standard MSFE). However, defective dentition due to extraction can impair mastication during the period of bone remodeling, especially if the molars on both sides are severely compromised and must be extracted. MSFE before extraction (modified MSFE) can take full advantage of residual tooth strength. However, the effectiveness and practicability of the modified MSFE procedure remain unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of modified vs. standard MSFE, in order to provide references to periodontists. Methods/design The study cohort included 25 adult patients (50 surgery sites) recruited from Peking University Hospital and School of Stomatology who met the inclusion criteria. The two sides of each patient will be randomly divided into two groups: a test group-modified MSFE or a control group-standard MSFE. The surgical duration and patient-reported outcomes (visual analog scale for discomfort) will be documented. Clinical indicators, including implant survival rates, mucosal conditions, and complications, will be recorded every 6 months during the 5-year follow-up period. The volume of the alveolar bone and marginal bone level will be assessed radiographically (cone-beam CT and periapical films) every 6 months. Histological analysis of biopsy samples retrieved from both sides will be performed to evaluate the biological features of the bone. Discussion The current study will explore the implant survival rates, safety, reliability, effectiveness, and practicability of the modified MSFE procedure. Moreover, the extent of osteogenesis on the sinus floor will also be assessed. The results of this trial will provide strategies for the modified MSFE procedure to achieve ideal clinical outcomes. Trial registration International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ChiCTR1900020648. Registered on 1 January 2019

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document