IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i24p9278-d460614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of Peri-Implant Bone Loss in Extra-Short, Short, and Conventional Implants. A 3-Year Retrospective Study

Author

Listed:
  • Daycelí Estévez-Pérez

    (Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

  • Naia Bustamante-Hernández

    (Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

  • Carlos Labaig-Rueda

    (Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

  • María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz

    (Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

  • José Amengual-Lorenzo

    (Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

  • Fernando García-Sala Bonmatí

    (Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

  • Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho

    (Department of Implant Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Alfonso X el Sabio University, 28691 Madrid, Spain)

  • Rubén Agustín-Panadero

    (Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the influence of implant length on marginal bone loss, comparing implants of 4 mm, 6 mm, and >8 mm, supporting two splinted crowns after 36-month functional loading. Materials and Methods: this retrospective clinical trial evaluated the peri-implant behavior of splinted crowns (two per case) on pairs of implants of the same length placed in the posterior maxilla (molar area). Implants were divided into three groups according to length (Group 1: extra-short 4 mm; Group 2: short 6 mm; Group 3: conventional length >8 mm). Marginal bone loss was analyzed using standardized periapical radiographs at the time of loading and 36 months later. Results: 24 patients (19 women and 5 men) were divided into three groups, eight rehabilitations per group, in the position of the maxillary first and second molars. The 48 Straumann ® Standard Plus (Regular Neck (RN)/Wide Neck (WN)) implants were examined after 36 months of functional loading. Statistical analysis found no significant differences in bone loss between the three groups ( p = 0.421). No implant suffered biological complications or implant loss. Long implants were associated with less radiographic bone loss. Conclusions: extra-short (4 mm); short (6 mm); and conventional length (>8 mm) implants in the posterior maxilla present similar peri-implant bone loss and 100% survival rates in rehabilitation, by means of two splinted crowns after 36 months of functional loading. Implants placed in posterior positions present better bone loss results than implants placed in anterior positions, regardless of the interproximal area where bone loss is measured. Conventional length (>8 mm) implants show better behavior in terms of distal bone loss than short (6 mm) and extra-short (4 mm) implants.

Suggested Citation

  • Daycelí Estévez-Pérez & Naia Bustamante-Hernández & Carlos Labaig-Rueda & María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz & José Amengual-Lorenzo & Fernando García-Sala Bonmatí & Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho & Rubén Agustín-Pan, 2020. "Comparative Analysis of Peri-Implant Bone Loss in Extra-Short, Short, and Conventional Implants. A 3-Year Retrospective Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9278-:d:460614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9278/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9278/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9278-:d:460614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.