Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare survival and success rates of 6 mm-long and 10 mmlong implants in partially edentulous posterior areas. Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients with a partially edentulous area were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated according to a parallel group design to receive 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants. A total of 54 implants were placed (26 × 6 mm implants). Patients were followed for 10 years after prosthetic loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival, marginal bone level changes and complications. Results: After 10 years, 17 patients (eight with 6 mm implants and nine with 10 mm implants) were available: three 6 mm and four 10 mm patients were lost to follow-up. One 6 mm implant failed during the healing period and its related prosthesis could not be placed. No implants were lost after loading. Nine patients in the 6 mm group registered a total of 15 complications: two mucositis, six decementations and seven chippings. Ten patients in the 10 mm group registered a total of 13 complications: five mucositis, two decementations and six chippings. Overall the difference for complications between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.22; difference in proportion = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.27). Decementations in the 6 mm group were statistically significant higher than the 10 mm group (P = 0.04; difference in proportion = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.74). Marginal bone loss at 10 years was 0.84 and 0.37 mm with the 6 mm and 10 mm groups, respectively (difference between the two groups 0.49 mm; 95% CI -0.31; 1.29; not statistically significant: t test P = 0.22). Conclusions: Rehabilitations supported by 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants showed similar clinical outcomes in terms of survival and success rates, although 6 mm implants had more decementations. Conflict of interest statement: The present study was supported by grant 369_2004 from ITI, Basel, Switzerland used to provide free implants and prosthetic components to the patient. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

6 mm vs 10 mm-long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior jaws : A 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial / S. Storelli, A. Abbà, M. Scanferla, D. Botticelli, E. Romeo. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY. - ISSN 1756-2406. - 11:3(2018), pp. 283-292.

6 mm vs 10 mm-long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior jaws : A 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

S. Storelli
Primo
;
E. Romeo
Ultimo
2018

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare survival and success rates of 6 mm-long and 10 mmlong implants in partially edentulous posterior areas. Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients with a partially edentulous area were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated according to a parallel group design to receive 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants. A total of 54 implants were placed (26 × 6 mm implants). Patients were followed for 10 years after prosthetic loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival, marginal bone level changes and complications. Results: After 10 years, 17 patients (eight with 6 mm implants and nine with 10 mm implants) were available: three 6 mm and four 10 mm patients were lost to follow-up. One 6 mm implant failed during the healing period and its related prosthesis could not be placed. No implants were lost after loading. Nine patients in the 6 mm group registered a total of 15 complications: two mucositis, six decementations and seven chippings. Ten patients in the 10 mm group registered a total of 13 complications: five mucositis, two decementations and six chippings. Overall the difference for complications between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.22; difference in proportion = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.27). Decementations in the 6 mm group were statistically significant higher than the 10 mm group (P = 0.04; difference in proportion = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.74). Marginal bone loss at 10 years was 0.84 and 0.37 mm with the 6 mm and 10 mm groups, respectively (difference between the two groups 0.49 mm; 95% CI -0.31; 1.29; not statistically significant: t test P = 0.22). Conclusions: Rehabilitations supported by 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants showed similar clinical outcomes in terms of survival and success rates, although 6 mm implants had more decementations. Conflict of interest statement: The present study was supported by grant 369_2004 from ITI, Basel, Switzerland used to provide free implants and prosthetic components to the patient. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
complications; partial edentulism; posterior edentulous jaw; randomised control trial; short dental implant
Settore MED/28 - Malattie Odontostomatologiche
2018
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Eur J Oral Implantol 2018 Storelli.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 128.73 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
128.73 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/628110
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 18
social impact