IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i7p3846-d531098.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Fabio Rossi

    (Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy)

  • Lorenzo Tuci

    (Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy)

  • Lorenzo Ferraioli

    (Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy)

  • Emanuele Ricci

    (Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy)

  • Andreea Suerica

    (ARDEC Academy, 47923 Rimini, Italy)

  • Daniele Botticelli

    (ARDEC Academy, 47923 Rimini, Italy)

  • Gerardo Pellegrino

    (Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy)

  • Pietro Felice

    (Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy)

Abstract

Background: In edentulous patients, bone resorption cannot allow the installation of standard implants and it is demanded to use short implants in the residual alveolar bone or longer implants in grafted bone. Aim: To compare the survival and bone level changes of standard plus short 4-mm implants used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with standard (10-mm) implants placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure. Material and Methods: Full-arch FDPs supported by six implants were randomly placed in both groups. In the control group, all implants were 10 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. The distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was installed after 4 months from bilaterally sinus floor elevation. In the test group (short group), the distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was 4 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. No sinus floor elevations were performed in the test group. Clinical assessments and X-rays were taken at prosthesis delivering and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also evaluated before surgery and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Results: The changes over time of the bone level for the short implants were −0.01 ± 0.11 mm, −0.04 ± 0.13 mm, −0.17 ± 0.29 mm, and −0.28 ± 0.37 mm after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from prosthesis delivering, respectively. For the standard implants, bone changes were −0.21 ± 0.33 mm ( p = 0.103), −0.30 ± 0.32 mm ( p = 0.023), −0.40 ± 0.37 mm ( p = 0.144), and −0.54 ± 0.49 mm ( p = 0.128), respectively. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups. Conclusions: Similar results on implant survival rate and marginal bone loss were observed for the short and standard implants, placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure, used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch FDP. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups ( p = 0.023).

Suggested Citation

  • Fabio Rossi & Lorenzo Tuci & Lorenzo Ferraioli & Emanuele Ricci & Andreea Suerica & Daniele Botticelli & Gerardo Pellegrino & Pietro Felice, 2021. "Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3846-:d:531098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3846/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3846/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Battista Menchini-Fabris & Paolo Toti & Giovanni Crespi & Ugo Covani & Roberto Crespi, 2020. "Distal Displacement of Maxillary Sinus Anterior Wall Versus Conventional Sinus Lift with Lateral Access: A 3-Year Retrospective Computerized Tomography Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-12, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      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:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3846-:d:531098. 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.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.