Short versus longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation for moderately atrophic posterior maxillae: A 1‐year randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Purpose To compare the clinical, radiographic outcomes and patient satisfaction of short‐6‐mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE). Materials and Methods Two hundred and twenty‐five patients with 225 implants were included and randomly assigned into three groups (each group: 75 implants) using randomizing table method: group 6 mm (6 mm implants alone), group 8 mm + O (8 mm implants + OSFE) and group 10 mm + O (10 mm implants + OSFE). Outcomes measures were as follows: implant survival, complication, resonance frequency analysis measurement, surgical time, bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket probing depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL) and patient satisfaction. Results The dropout rate was 3.6% at 1 year. Implant survival rates were 96%, 100% and 100% in group 6 mm, group 8 mm + O and group 10 mm + O, respectively. In group 6 mm, the survival rates of implants with diameter of 4.1 mm were 90% (27/30), while the survival rates of implants with diameter of 4.8 mm were 100% (42/42). The surgical time (min) in group 6 mm was significantly shorter than those in group 8 mm + O and group 10 mm + O (13.6 ± 2.2, 19.4 ± 3.7 and 18.3 ± 4.3, respectively, p = 0.03). No significant differences in ISQ values, BOP, PPD, mPI and MBL were found among three groups. Significant higher value of intra‐operative discomfort was found in group 6 mm (p = 0.02). Conclusion All treatment options provided acceptable clinical and radiographic results up to 1 year after loading. The current 1‐year results must be confirmed by longer follow‐ups of at least 5 years.

Are <7‐mm long implants in native bone as effective as longer implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Figure 1 is a flowchart of the screening process. In total, 13 studies 8,35‐46 were included in this systematic review. For five of them 35‐37,41,44 the results were reported in multiple publications, so that a total of 25 articles 8,10,35‐57 were considered in the analysis.…”

“…In total, 13 studies 8,35‐46 were included in this systematic review. For five of them 35‐37,41,44 the results were reported in multiple publications, so that a total of 25 articles 8,10,35‐57 were considered in the analysis. Thirty‐six articles 15,58‐92 were excluded after full‐text evaluation.…”

“…As there were three studies with a split‐mouth design, that recruited a total of 80 patients, the total number of patients enrolled in the 13 studies was 738. Four studies had a follow‐up of 1 year, 38‐40,43 one of 2 years, 46 three of 3 years, 8,42,45 four of 5 years, 35‐37,44 and one of 8 years 41 (Table 2). Six studies have been performed in Italy, 35‐37,40,41,45 two in China, 39,46 one each in Brazil, 8 Iran, 43 Poland, 42 United States, 38 and a multicenter study in Austria, Spain, Switzerland, and United States 44 .…”

“…Four studies had a follow‐up of 1 year, 38‐40,43 one of 2 years, 46 three of 3 years, 8,42,45 four of 5 years, 35‐37,44 and one of 8 years 41 (Table 2). Six studies have been performed in Italy, 35‐37,40,41,45 two in China, 39,46 one each in Brazil, 8 Iran, 43 Poland, 42 United States, 38 and a multicenter study in Austria, Spain, Switzerland, and United States 44 . Five studies treated patients in both maxilla and mandible, 35‐38,40 six studies only in the maxilla, 8,39,42,44‐46 and two only in the mandible 41,43 …”

Long‐term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation without grafting in severely atrophic maxilla: A 10‐year prospective study

“…Implant placement in atrophic posterior maxilla is a challenging procedure due to insufficient bone quantity and quality (El Hage et al, 2019;Shi et al, 2019). Osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) has been proven to be a predictable and less invasive approach to rehabilitate the atrophic maxilla and allow straightforward implant placement (Farina et al, 2018;Merheb et al, 2019;Raghoebar et al, 2019).…”