Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Akademie für Orale Implantologie, Private Practice, Vienna, Austria.
J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Dec;45(12):1465-1474. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13025. Epub 2018 Nov 25.
To compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants and standard length implants placed in combination with bone grafting at 5 years of loading.
This multicentre study enrolled 101 patients (137 implants) with a posterior maxillary bone height of 5-7 mm. Patients randomly received either short implants (6 mm; GS) or long implants (11-15 mm) with sinus grafting (GG). Six months later, implants were loaded with single crowns and patients re-examined at 1, 3 and 5 years of loading. Outcomes included: implant survival, marginal bone levels (MBLs), biological and technical parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (OHIP-49 = Oral Health Impact Profile). Statistical analysis was performed using a non-parametric approach.
At 5 years, 90 patients (124 implants; GS: 60; GG: 64) were re-examined (drop-out rate 10%). Patient-level implant survival rates were 98.5% (GS; 1 implant failure) and 100% (GG; p = 0.49). Mean MBLs were 0.54 mm ± 0.87 (GS) and 0.46 mm ± 1.00 (GG; p = 0.34). Biological and technical parameters were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Median overall OHIP-49 scores improved significantly up to 5 years in both groups (GS: p = 0.03; GG: p = 0.00; intergroup comparison p = 0.11).
Both treatment modalities were suitable for implant therapy in the atrophied posterior maxilla revealing no differences in terms of survival rates, marginal bone levels (changes), patient-reported outcomes and technical/biological complications.
比较在 5 年负荷期内,与骨移植联合使用的短种植体和标准长度种植体的种植体存活率。
本多中心研究纳入了 101 名上颌后牙区牙槽骨高度为 5-7mm 的患者(137 枚种植体)。患者随机接受短种植体(6mm;GS)或长种植体(11-15mm)联合窦底提升术(GG)。6 个月后,种植体被加载单冠,患者在负荷后 1、3 和 5 年进行复查。结果包括:种植体存活率、边缘骨吸收量(MBLs)、生物学和技术参数以及患者报告的结果测量(OHIP-49=口腔健康影响程度量表)。采用非参数方法进行统计分析。
5 年后,90 名患者(124 枚种植体;GS:60 枚;GG:64 枚)接受了复查(失访率 10%)。患者层面的种植体存活率分别为 98.5%(GS;1 枚种植体失败)和 100%(GG;p=0.49)。平均 MBLs 分别为 0.54mm±0.87(GS)和 0.46mm±1.00(GG;p=0.34)。生物学和技术参数无显著差异(p>0.05)。两组的总体 OHIP-49 评分在 5 年内均显著改善(GS:p=0.03;GG:p=0.00;组间比较 p=0.11)。
两种治疗方法均适用于萎缩性上颌后牙的种植治疗,在存活率、边缘骨吸收量(变化)、患者报告的结果以及技术/生物学并发症方面无差异。