Wir verwenden Cookies, um für diese Website Funktionen wie z.B. Login, einen Warenkorb oder die Sprachwahl zu ermöglichen. Weiterhin nutzen wir für anonymisierte, statistische Auswertungen der Nutzung Google Analytics, welches Cookies setzt. Mehr Informationen finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
OK, ich bin einverstanden Ich möchte keine Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Oral Implantology
Login:
Benutzername:

Kennwort:

Plattform:

Kennwort vergessen?

Registrieren

Int J Oral Implantol 11 (2018), Nr. 3     20. Sep. 2018
Int J Oral Implantol 11 (2018), Nr. 3  (20.09.2018)

Seite 283-292, PubMed:30246182, Sprache: Englisch


6 mm vs 10 mm-long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior jaws: A 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial
Storelli, Stefano / Abbà, Alessandra / Scanferla, Massimo / Botticelli, Daniele / Romeo, Eugenio
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare survival and success rates of 6 mm-long and 10 mm-long implants in partially edentulous posterior areas.
Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients with a partially edentulous area were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated according to a parallel group design to receive 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants. A total of 54 implants were placed (26 × 6 mm implants). Patients were followed for 10 years after prosthetic loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival, marginal bone level changes and complications.
Results: After 10 years, 17 patients (eight with 6 mm implants and nine with 10 mm implants) were available: three 6 mm and four 10 mm patients were lost to follow-up. One 6 mm implant failed during the healing period and its related prosthesis could not be placed. No implants were lost after loading. Nine patients in the 6 mm group registered a total of 15 complications: two mucositis, six decementations and seven chippings. Ten patients in the 10 mm group registered a total of 13 complications: five mucositis, two decementations and six chippings. Overall the difference for complications between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.22; difference in proportion = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.27). Decementations in the 6 mm group were statistically significant higher than the 10 mm group (P = 0.04; difference in proportion = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.74). Marginal bone loss at 10 years was 0.84 and 0.37 mm with the 6 mm and 10 mm groups, respectively (difference between the two groups 0.49 mm; 95% CI -0.31; 1.29; not statistically significant: t test P = 0.22).
Conclusions: Rehabilitations supported by 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants showed similar clinical outcomes in terms of survival and success rates, although 6 mm implants had more decementations.

Conflict of interest statement: The present study was supported by grant 369_2004 from ITI, Basel, Switzerland used to provide free implants and prosthetic components to the patient. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Schlagwörter: complications, partial edentulism, posterior edentulous jaw, randomised control trial, short dental implant
Volltext (keine Berechtigung) einzeln als PDF kaufen (20.00 €)Endnote-Export