Barausse Carlo, Pistilli Roberto, Canullo Luigi, Bonifazi Lorenzo, Ferri Agnese, Felice Pietro
Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Unit of Oral Surgery, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Postgraduate School of Oral Surgery, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022 Feb;24(1):4-12. doi: 10.1111/cid.13061. Epub 2022 Jan 12.
Short implants (up to 5-mm long) have shown good results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented bone.
To evaluate if 4-mm ultrashort implants could also be an alternative to bone augmentation in the severely atrophic posterior jaws. The primary aim of the study was to compare implant survival rates between study groups.
Eighty partially edentulous patients with posterior atrophic jaws (5-6 mm of bone above the mandibular canal and 4-5 mm below the maxillary sinus) were included: 40 patients in the maxilla and 40 in mandible. The patients were randomized to receive one to three 4-mm ultrashort implants or one to three implants at least 10-mm long in augmented bone. Results are reported 5 years after loading with the following outcome measures: implant and prosthetic failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.
Thirty-two complications were reported for the control group in 18 patients versus 13 complications in 10 patients in the test group, the difference being not statistically significant (p = 0.103). In the augmented group, 12 implants failed in 6 patients versus 7 short implants in 6 cases, and 9 prostheses failed in the control group while 4 in the test one, without statistically significant differences (p = 1.000 and 0.363, respectively). At 5 years after loading, short implants lost on average 0.58 ± 0.40 mm of peri-implant marginal bone and long implants 0.99 ± 0.58 mm, the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.006).
Four-millimeter ultrashort implants showed similar if not better results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented jaws 5 years after loading. For this reason, their use could be in specific cases preferable to bone augmentation since the treatment is less invasive, faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity. However, longer follow-ups and larger trials are needed.
与植入增强骨中的较长种植体相比,短种植体(长度达5毫米)已显示出良好的效果。
评估4毫米超短种植体是否也可作为严重萎缩后牙颌骨骨增量的替代方法。本研究的主要目的是比较各研究组之间的种植体存活率。
纳入80例后牙颌骨萎缩的部分牙列缺损患者(下颌管上方骨量为5 - 6毫米,上颌窦下方骨量为4 - 5毫米):上颌40例,下颌40例。患者被随机分为接受1至3枚4毫米超短种植体组或在增强骨中接受1至3枚至少10毫米长的种植体组。在加载后5年报告结果,采用以下观察指标:种植体和修复体失败情况、并发症以及种植体周围边缘骨水平变化。
对照组18例患者报告了32例并发症,而试验组10例患者报告了13例并发症,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.103)。在增强骨组中,6例患者有12枚种植体失败,而试验组6例患者有7枚短种植体失败;对照组9个修复体失败,试验组4个修复体失败,差异均无统计学意义(分别为p = 1.000和0.363)。加载后5年,短种植体的种植体周围边缘骨平均丧失0.58±0.40毫米,长种植体为0.99±0.58毫米,差异有统计学意义(p = 0.006)。
加载后5年,与植入增强颌骨中的较长种植体相比,4毫米超短种植体显示出相似甚至更好的结果。因此,在特定情况下,其使用可能比骨增量更可取,因为该治疗侵入性更小、速度更快、成本更低且发病率更低。然而,需要更长时间的随访和更大规模的试验。