To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Five-year results from a … - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

Five-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws.

Journal article
Authors Pietro Felice
Carlo Barausse
Roberto Pistilli
Daniela Rita Ippolito
Marco Esposito
Published in International journal of oral implantology (New Malden, London, England)
Volume 12
Issue 1
Pages 25-37
ISSN 2631-6439
Publication year 2019
Published at Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Pages 25-37
Language en
Keywords Alveolar Ridge Augmentation, Animals, Cattle, Dental Implantation, Endosseous, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Dental Restoration Failure, Humans, Jaw, Edentulous
Subject categories Biomaterials Science


To evaluate whether 5-mm short dental implants could be an alternative to augmentation with anorganic bovine bone and placement of at least 10-mm long implants in posterior atrophic jaws.Fifteen patients with bilateral atrophic mandibles (5 to 7 mm bone height above the mandibular canal) and 15 patients with bilateral atrophic maxillae (4 to 6 mm bone height below the maxillary sinus), and bone thickness of at least 8 mm, were randomised according to a split-mouth design to receive one to three 5-mm short implants or at least 10-mm long implants in augmented bone. Mandibles were vertically augmented with interpositional bone blocks and maxillary sinuses with particulated bone via a lateral window. Implants were placed after 4 months, submerged and loaded, after another 4 months, with provisional prostheses. Four months later, definitive provisionally cemented prostheses were delivered. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, any complication and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.In five augmented mandibles the planned 10-mm long implants could not be placed and shorter implants (7.0 and 8.5 mm) had to be used instead. Five years after loading, six patients, five treated in the mandible and one in the maxilla, dropped out. Three prostheses (one mandibular and two maxillary) failed in the short-implant group versus none in the long-implant group. In mandibles one long implant failed versus two short implants in one patient. In maxillae one long implant failed versus three short implants in two patients. There were no statistically significant differences in implant (n = 26; P = 1.00, difference = 3.85%, 95% CI: -12.95% to 20.64%) and prosthetic (n = 26; P = 0.250, difference = 11.54%, 95% CI: -0.74% to 23.82%) failures. Eleven patients had 16 complications at short implants (one patient accounted for six complications) and 12 patients had 14 complications at long implants. There were no statistically significant differences in complications (n = 28; P = 1.00, difference = -3.57%, 95% CI: -30.65% to 23.51%). Five years after loading, patients with mandibular implants lost on average 1.72 mm at short implants and 2.10 mm at long implants of peri-implant marginal bone. This difference was statistically significant (difference = 0.37 ± 0.43 mm; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.68 mm; P = 0.022). In maxillae, patients lost on average 1.31 mm at short implants and 1.79 mm at long implants. This difference was statistically significant (difference = 0.48 ± 0.43 mm; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.74 mm; P = 0.002).Five years after loading, 5-mm short implants achieved similar results to longer implants in augmented bone. The choice of short implants might be preferable to vertical bone augmentation, especially in mandibles, since the treatment is faster and cheaper.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?