To the top

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

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Short implants versus lon… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented atrophic mandibles: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with a 5-year post-loading follow-up.

Journal article
Authors Marco Esposito
Jacopo Buti
Carlo Barausse
Roberta Gasparro
Gilberto Sammartino
Pietro Felice
Published in International journal of oral implantology (New Malden, London, England)
Volume 12
Issue 3
Pages 267-280
ISSN 2631-6439
Publication year 2019
Published at Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Pages 267-280
Language en
Links www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Keywords Alveolar Ridge Augmentation, Dental Implantation, Endosseous, Dental Implants, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Dental Restoration Failure, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Mandible, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome
Subject categories Biomaterials Science

Abstract

To compare the clinical outcome of fixed prostheses supported by 4- to 8-mm-long implants with prostheses supported by longer implants placed in vertically augmented atrophic mandibles after a follow-up of 5 years in function.The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and MEDLINE were searched up to 1st September 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 5 years in function comparing fixed prostheses supported by 4- to 8-mm-long implants with prostheses supported by longer implants placed in vertically augmented atrophic mandibles. Outcome measures were prosthesis failure, implant failures, augmentation procedure failures, complications, and peri-implant marginal bone level changes. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the risk of bias and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. The statistical unit of the analysis was the prosthesis. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Four eligible RCTs that included originally 135 patients were included. Two RCTs had a parallel-group design and two a split-mouth design. Short implants were 5.0 to 6.6 mm long and were compared with longer implants placed in posterior mandibles augmented with interpositional blocks of bone substitutes. All trials were judged at unclear risk of bias. Twelve (14%) bone augmentation procedures failed to achieve the planned bone height to allow placement of implants with the planned length. Five years after loading, 28 patients (21%) had dropped out from the four RCTs. There were no differences for patients having prosthesis (RR = 1.46; 95% CI: 0.52 to 4.09; P = 0.47; I2 = 0%) or implant (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.31 to 3.21; P = 1.00; I2 = 0%) failures between the two interventions, but there were more patients experiencing complications (RR = 4.72; 95% CI: 2.43 to 9.17; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and peri-implant marginal bone loss (mean difference = 0.60 mm; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.83; P < 0.00001; I2 = 45%) at longer implants in augmented bone.Five years after loading, prosthetic and implant failures were similar between the two interventions, but complications and peri-implant marginal bone loss were higher and more severe at longer implants placed in vertically augmented mandibles. Larger trials and longer follow-ups up to 10 years after loading are needed to confirm or reject the present preliminary findings. However in the meantime short implants could be the preferable option.

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

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?