Short implants (≤6 mm) as an alternative treatment option to maxillary sinus lift

Carosi, Paolo; Lorenzi, C; Lio, Fabrizio; Laureti, Mariasole; Ferrigno, Nicola; Arcuri, C

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2021.02.014

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, some patients are often complicated by severe periodontitis or dental caries, resulting in the loss, loosening, or atrophy of the maxillary posterior teeth, which not only seriously affects the patients. The patient's quality of life and psychological state also increase the difficulty of implant placement in this dental area [ 2 , 3 ]. In the past, the conventional implantation method was easy to penetrate until the mucosa of the maxillary sinus floor, resulting in the emergence of complications and affecting the surgical effect [ 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Application Effect of External and Internal Elevation of Maxillary Sinus in Implant Restoration of Posterior Maxilla

Shi

Zhan

Yang

2022

Emergency Medicine International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To explore and analyze the application effect of external and internal elevation of the maxillary sinus in implant restoration of the posterior maxilla. Methods. A total of 84 patients undergoing implant restoration of the posterior maxilla in the hospital were enrolled between January 2019 and March 2021. According to the random number table method, they were divided into the observation group (n = 42) and the control group (n = 42). The control group underwent external elevation of the maxillary sinus, while the observation group underwent internal elevation of the maxillary sinus. At 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after surgery, the pain degree between the two groups was compared. All were followed up at 6 months after surgery. The osseointegration (bone resorption around implants, elevation height of maxillary sinus floor, average healing time) and soft tissues (bleeding index, plaque index, probing depth) in both groups were observed. The occurrence of postoperative complications was recorded. Results. At 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after surgery, VAS scores in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group ( P < 0.05 ). At 6 months after surgery, bone resorption and elevation height of the maxillary sinus floor in the observation group were significantly higher than those i.0.0n the control group, and the average healing time was significantly shorter than that in the control group ( P < 0.05 ). The bleeding index, plaque index, and probing depth in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group ( P < 0.05 ). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the observation group and the control group (9.52% vs. 19.05%) ( P > 0.05 ). Conclusion. The application effect of internal elevation of the maxillary sinus is good in implant restoration of the posterior maxilla, which can relieve pain and swelling and improve implant effect.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application Effect of External and Internal Elevation of Maxillary Sinus in Implant Restoration of Posterior Maxilla

Shi

Zhan

Yang

2022

Emergency Medicine International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To avoid these risks and the clinical time required, short [8] and tilted [9] implants could be considered a viable solution to engage basal bone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tilted Implants and Sinus Floor Elevation Techniques Compared in Posterior Edentulous Maxilla: A Retrospective Clinical Study over Four Years of Follow-Up

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications of implants placed through sinus floor elevation and tilted implants engaged in basal bone to bypass the maxillary sinus. Sixty patients were enrolled for this study. According to the residual bone height of the posterior maxilla, the sample was divided into three groups of 20 patients: Group A (lateral sinus floor elevation), Group B (transcrestal sinus floor elevation), and Group C (tilted implants employed to bypass the sinus floor). Follow-up visits were performed one week after surgery, at three and six months, and then once a year for the next 4 years. The outcomes were the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications. Although Groups A, B, and C demonstrated implant survival rates of 83.3%, 86.7%, and 98.3%, respectively, the statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference between groups. Statistically significant differences between groups were also not found concerning marginal bone loss, as recorded by intra-oral X-ray measurements during follow-up examinations. Regarding complications, it was not possible to perform a statistical analysis. To reduce possible surgical risks, implant placement in basal bone could be preferred.

show abstract

“…While some authors considered short implants those under 10 mm [ 35 , 36 ], others considered a length under 8 mm [ 37 ] and more recently, others under 6.5 mm [ 38 ] or 6 mm. [ 39 , 40 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some authors considered short implants those under 10 mm [35,36], others considered a length under 8 mm [37] and more recently, others under 6.5 mm [38] or 6 mm. [39,40] Recent evidence from clinical trials has shown the need for more studies and longer periods of follow-up before the recommendation of short implants to support singlecrown restorations [19,40]. The objective of this study has been the comparison between short implants and longer implants in terms of implant survival, marginal bone remodeling and prosthetic complications of singlecrown restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-crown restorations in premolar–molar regions: short (≤ 6.5) vs longer implants: retrospective cohort study

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the survival, changes in marginal bone level and prosthetic complications rate of short (≤ 6.5 mm) and longer implants (≥ 7.5) supporting a single-crown restoration in the maxillary/mandibular premolar or molar region. Methods This cohort study was conducted following the STROBE statement recommendations for observational studies. Clinical outcomes of 88 short implants in 78 patients and 88 long implants in 88 patients were examined. All the implants had been placed by the same surgeon and restored following the same prosthetic concept; using a transepithelial abutment (intermediate abutment) and a screw retained restoration. Results All the implants were in function after the follow-up period since insertion (median: 31 months; range 11 to 84 for SiG vs median: 35 months; range: 6–117 for CG; p = 0.139). No statistical differences (p = 0.342) were observed related to prosthetic complications (screw loosening 2/88 vs 5/88 CG, ceramic chipping 1/88 vs 0/88, temporary crown resin chipping 1/88 vs 0/88 for SiG and CG, respectively) or related to marginal bone level (Mesial or Distal MBL ≥ 2 mm in 1/88 implants for SiG vs 3/88 for CG; p = 0.312). Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, no survival differences have been observed between short implants and longer implants in single-crown restorations in posterior maxilla/mandible.

show abstract

Short implants (≤6 mm) as an alternative treatment option to maxillary sinus lift

Cited by 20 publications

References 38 publications

Application Effect of External and Internal Elevation of Maxillary Sinus in Implant Restoration of Posterior Maxilla

Application Effect of External and Internal Elevation of Maxillary Sinus in Implant Restoration of Posterior Maxilla

Tilted Implants and Sinus Floor Elevation Techniques Compared in Posterior Edentulous Maxilla: A Retrospective Clinical Study over Four Years of Follow-Up

Single-crown restorations in premolar–molar regions: short (≤ 6.5) vs longer implants: retrospective cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About