Clinical, radiographic and economic evaluation of short‐6‐mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in moderately atrophic maxillae: A 3‐year randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Aim: To compare the 3-year clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) in the posterior maxilla. Material and Methods:This study enrolled 225 patients (225 implants with diameter of 4.1 mm and 4.8 mm) with a posterior maxillary residual bone height (RBH) of 6-8 mm. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 (6 mm implants alone), Group 2 (8 mm implants + OSFE) and Group 3 (10 mm implants + OSFE). The following outcomes were recorded at 1 and 3-year examinations: implant survival, probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and technical complications, complication-free survival and treatment costs.Results: At the 3-year follow-up, 199 patients (Group 1: 67; Group 2: 62; Group 3: 70) were re-examined. Implant survival rates were 91.80%, 97.08% and 100.00% in groups 1, 2 and 3. Implant survival rate in Group 1 was significantly lower than that in Group 3 (p = 0.029). A multivariate Cox model showed that the short-6-mm implants with wide diameter had a protective effect on implant survival (hazard ratio: 0.59, p = 0.001). No significant differences in BOP%, PPD, mPI, MBL and complication-free survival rate were found among the three groups. The average costs of retreatment were 8.31%, 1.96% and 0.56% of the total costs in groups 1, 2 and 3. The cost to avoid a 1% increase in implant loss associated with 6-mm implants over a 3-year period was 369 CNY (56 USD) using a 10-mm implant with OSFE and 484 CNY (74 USD) using an 8-mm implant with OSFE. Conclusion:In the moderately atrophic posterior maxillae, the three treatments showed acceptable clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes with up to 3-year follow-up. 10-mm implants combined with OSFE showed more favourable implant

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…After removing 710 duplicates, titles and abstracts of the remaining 1174 articles were screened. The full texts of nine potentially eligible articles were browsed; three studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for the final analysis [ 26 – 28 ]. Figure 1 describes the reasons why studies were removed from the review.…”

“…This review included three RCTs [ 26 – 28 ], and Table 2 outlines their characteristics. The length of short implants ranged from 6.5 to 8 mm, and that of standard implants ranged from 10 to 16 mm.…”

“…The length of short implants ranged from 6.5 to 8 mm, and that of standard implants ranged from 10 to 16 mm. In the study by Shi et al, both the short and standard implant groups underwent OSFE [ 26 ], while in the other two studies, only the standard implant group underwent LSFE [ 27 , 28 ]. The follow-up periods of the included studies were 3, 5 and 2 years, respectively.…”

Short versus standard implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The heterogeneity was considered high for the marginal bone loss (I 2 = 78% and I 2 = 74%), so funnel plot shows asymmetry. The main reason of the asymmetry encountered could be due to the difference in the sample size of the included studies Implant diameters, in the present research, ranged from 3.3 [42] to 6 mm [5]. Differences in implant diameter introduced heterogeneity among studies with respect to MBL.…”

Long‐term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA)

“…Most of the studies reported comparable survival rates of 8‐mm implants and longer implants (Nielsen et al, 2019). As for 6‐mm implant, several mid‐term data (3 to 5 years) revealed acceptable clinical results (Gulje et al, 2021; Naenni et al, 2018; Shi et al, 2021). It is suggested that time in function may influence the survival rate of short implants more than that of longer implants (Jung et al, 2018).…”