One‐stage versus two‐stage technique using two splinted extra‐short implants: A multicentric split‐mouth study with a one‐year follow‐up

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of extra-short implants (≤6.5 mm) inserted with one-stage versus two-stage technique in adjacent sites of the upper or lower jaw. Materials and Methods:In this split-mouth multicenter study, implants were randomly divided into two groups according to the healing phase: two-stage and onestage technique. Primary outcome measures were implant survival, implant success, and prosthodontic complications. Secondary outcome measurements were: implant stability quotient (ISQ) collected at surgery time (T0), and after 3 (T3) and 12 (T12) months, marginal bone level (MBL) evaluated at T0, T3, T6, and T12, marginal bone loss evaluated at T6 and T12, plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP) evaluated at T3, T6, and T12. Significances of differences between groups were tested by linear mixed model with random intercept.Results: Nineteen patients (8 males and 11 females) were included. A total of 38 implants were inserted. At T12 implant cumulative survival and implant success rate were 100% in both groups. No statistically significant differences were recorded for any of the analyzed parameters between the two groups at any time point. ISQ values were similar at T0 (two-stage: mean 67.53 ± SD 19.47; one-stage: mean 66.53 ± 19.07 p = 0.8738) and increased in both groups at the 12-month follow-up appointment (two-stage: 81.1 ± 7.04; one-stage: 81.39 ± 0.9266). MBL values were similar in the two groups at any time point. At T12 marginal bone loss was 0.46 ± 0.41 (two-stage) and 0.45 ± 0.38 (one-stage) mm (p = 0.9417), while mean PD was 2.7 ± 0.85 (two-stage) and 2.69 ± 0.89 (one-stage) mm.Conclusions: Within the limits of the present short-term report, extra-short implants demonstrated optimal clinical outcomes using the one-stage technique, without statistically significant differences compared with the traditional two-stage approach.

Can Abutment with Novel Superlattice CrN/NbN Coatings Influence Peri-Implant Tissue Health and Implant Survival Rate Compared to Machined Abutment? 6-Month Results from a Multi-Center Split-Mouth Randomized Control Trial

“…The results observed in the present study regarding implant survival rate and MBL of posterior implant supporting multi-unit fixed prosthesis (ISMFP) are in agreement with the data described in the literature with similar observational periods and different implants and techniques. Menini et al [34] reported the outcome of 38 ISMFP placed either with one-stage or two-stage technique. The authors findings showed a survival and success rate of 100% and a MBL of 0.46 ± 0.41 (two-stage) and 0.45 ± 0.38 (one-stage) mm after a 1 year observational period.…”

Histomorphometric Evaluation of New Bone Formation, Dimensional Changes, and Residual Particles in Alveolar Ridge Preservation Techniques Using InterOss® Anorganic Cancellous Bone Graft: A Longitudinal Study

“…Nevertheless, the angulated abutments introduced the possibility of tilting the distal implants to avoid the anatomic boundaries (alveolar nerve and maxillary sinus). However, these surgical procedures can result in prolonged treatment times, high costs, and morbidity for the patient [8,9].…”

Up to a 15-Year Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Resorption of 1780 Implants with or without Microthreads: A Multi Center Retrospective Study

“…Furthermore, it has been reported that the first-year MBL after implant placement is an important factor in the success or failure of implant treatment [ 8 ]. The amount of MBL is influenced by patient-related factors such as the patient’s history of periodontitis, smoking status, and plaque control ability, as well as implant-related factors such as implant connection and geometric configuration [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ].…”