Long‐term survival analysis of standard‐length and short implants with multifunctional abutments

Abstract

Summary Background Spherical shape and connecting bypass screw of the OT Equator abutment (Rhein83, Italy) provides several retentive possibilities, even in non‐parallel implants. Objective This study assessed the long‐term survival of standard‐length and short implants receiving this multifunctional abutment. Methods Partially, edentulous patients (44 males and 64 females) (mean age 58.2 ± 10.5 years) rehabilitated with a fixed implant‐supported prosthesis where the OT Equator abutments (Rhein83) were applied. Follow‐up evaluations were performed up to 5 years following prosthesis delivery. Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were used to determine whether the distribution of time to failure differed based on implant characteristics (length and region), adjusting for sex (α = 0.05). Results In total, 216 implants (5 × 8 mm, n = 126; 5 × 6 mm, n = 90) (Betwice, Mech & Human, Italy) were installed. The average follow‐up period was 25.3 months (±19.3 months). Eight failures occurred, with most observed before loading (n = 6). Cumulative survival rates (CSR) at implant and abutment levels were 94.3% and 97.1%, respectively. Regarding implant length, CSRs were 97.8% and 90.6% for short and standard‐length implants, respectively, with no difference between subgroups (logrank: χ2 = 1.34, df = 1, P = 0.25). No significant difference was also found between implants of maxilla (CSR = 92.2%) and mandible (CSR = 95.5%; logrank: χ2 = 0.08, df = 1, P = 0.78). Conclusion The OT Equator abutment (Rhein83) showed a stable clinical performance, with continuous and predictable survival.

Are <7‐mm long implants in native bone as effective as longer implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…For five of them 35‐37,41,44 the results were reported in multiple publications, so that a total of 25 articles 8,10,35‐57 were considered in the analysis. Thirty‐six articles 15,58‐92 were excluded after full‐text evaluation. Table 1 reports the list of excluded studies with the main reasons for exclusion.…”

Short vs. Standard Length Cone Morse Connection Implants: An In Vitro Pilot Study in Low Density Polyurethane Foam

“…Alternatives to the use of SI are sinus augmentation procedures, the use of zygomatic implants, guided bone regeneration procedures, onlay grafts, inlay grafts, distraction osteogenesis, and lateralization of the inferior alveolar nerve [4,12]. Several recent systematic reviews, some of them with a metanalysis of the data, have shown: no differences in the in the survival rate between SI and standard length implants (ST); no differences in marginal bone loss (MBL); lower biological complications in SI; good primary stability in SI; higher mechanical complications in SI [3,4,9,10,[13][14][15][16].…”