Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: Three‐year results of a randomized clinical study

Abstract

Background: Several treatment options exist for the implant-supported rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla.Purpose: To compare maxillary sinus floor augmentation associated to standard length implants, with direct placement of implants of reduced length in the available residual bone. Materials and Methods:Patients with edentulous posterior maxilla and a residual height of 4-7 mm were randomly allocated to the test (short implants [SIs], 6.5 to 8.5mm long) or the control (sinus augmentation [SA] and implants 10mm long) group. Anorganic bovine bone was the grafting material for the control group. In both groups pure platelet-rich plasma was used to bioactivate implant surface prior to insertion. Implant and prosthesis survival, clinical variables, radiographic bone level change, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were assessed.Results: Twenty-five patients were treated in the control group (58 standard length implants) and 27 in the test group (42 SIs). After 3 years of follow-up no implant failure and biological or mechanical complications were recorded. Marginal bone loss, soft tissue, and oral hygiene parameters were similar in the 2 groups at both 1 and 3 years' follow-up. Postoperative pain, swelling and other symptoms and daily activities were better in the SIs group than in the SA group, while patients' satisfaction after 1 year was similar.Conclusions: In spite of comparable medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, when the residual ridge height is sufficient for a safe placement, SIs may be preferred due to simplified protocol, less invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced postoperative discomfort as compared to SA.

Short versus longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation for moderately atrophic posterior maxillae: A 1‐year randomized clinical trial

“…In this study, implant survival rates of group 6 mm were comparable to those of group 8 mm + O (8 mm) and group 10 mm + O (10 mm). This result was in line with several published RCTs (Bechara et al, ; Esposito et al, ; Schincaglia et al, ; Taschieri, Lolato, Testori, Francetti, & Fabbro, ). In these studies, the implant survival rates (85.7%–100%) of short implants (5–8.5 mm) were similar with those (95%–100%) of longer implant (≥10 mm) after 1‐ to 3‐year follow‐up.…”

Does intraoperative perforation of Schneiderian membrane during sinus lift surgery causes an increased the risk of implants failure?: A systematic review and meta regression analysis

“…At this stage of the analysis, 42 studies were excluded because they did not meet inclusion criteria. Finally, a total of 58 studies met the inclusion criteria and were processed for critical review …”

Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

“…The short implants inserted in the mandibular molar area were found to be more reliable than those in the maxilla. It was well documented that the higher loss rate in the maxillary posterior molar area may be ascribed to the insufficient bone volume, comparatively poorer bone quality and bone grafting procedures …”