Int J Oral Implantol 12 (2019), No. 1 11. Mar. 2019
Int J Oral Implantol 12 (2019), No. 1 (11.03.2019)
Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. Five-year results from a randomised controlled trial
Esposito, Marco / Barausse, Carlo / Pistilli, Roberto / Piattelli, Maurizio / Di Simone, Salvatore / Ippolito, Daniela Rita / Felice, Pietro
Purpose: To evaluate whether 5 × 5 mm dental implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface could be an alternative to implants at least 10-mm long placed in bone augmented with bone substitutes in posterior atrophic jaws.
Materials and methods: Forty patients with atrophic posterior (premolar and molar areas) mandibles having 5- to 7-mm bone height above the mandibular canal, and 40 patients with atrophic maxillae having 4- to 6-mm bone height below the maxillary sinus, were randomised according to a parallel-group design to receive one to three 5-mm implants or one to three at least 10-mm long implants in augmented bone at two centres. All implants had a diameter of 5 mm. Mandibles were vertically augmented with interpositional bovine bone blocks covered with resorbable barriers. Implants were placed after 4 months. Maxillary sinuses were augmented with particulated porcine bone via a lateral window covered with resorbable barriers and implants were placed simultaneously. All implants were submerged and loaded after 4 months with provisional prostheses. Four months later, definitive screw-retained or provisionally cemented metal-ceramic or zirconia prostheses were delivered. Patients were followed to 5 years post-loading and the outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, any complication and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.
Results: Sixteen patients dropped out before the 5-year evaluation (four short mandibles, three short maxillae, six augmented mandibles and three augmented maxillae). In mandibles, two grafted patients were not prosthetically rehabilitated because of multiple complications, and three implants failed in the same patient (one was a replacement implant) versus one patient who lost his short implant and crown 2 years after loading. In maxillae one short implant failed with its provisional crown 3 months post-loading. There were no statistically significant differences in prostheses (difference in proportion = -0.003; 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.13; P = 1.000) and implant failures (difference in proportion = -0.03; 95% CI: -0.17 to 0.09; P = 0.609) up to 5 years after loading. Significantly more complications occurred at mandibular grafted sites: 17 augmented patients were affected by complications versus nine patients treated with short implants in mandibles (difference in proportion = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.62; P = 0.013). In the maxilla seven sinus-elevated patients versus two patients treated with short implants were affected by complications, the difference not being statistically significant (difference in proportion = 0.25; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.49; P = 0.128). Patients with mandibular short implants lost on average 1.22 mm of peri-implant bone at 5 years and patients with 10-mm or longer mandibular implants lost 1.70 mm. Patients with maxillary short implants lost on average 1.25 mm of peri-implant bone at 5 years and patients with 10-mm or longer maxillary implants lost 1.73 mm. Longer implants showed a greater bone loss up to 5 years after loading than short implants both in maxillae (mean difference: -0.48 mm; 95% CI: -0.89 to -0.07 mm; P = 0.024) and in mandibles (mean difference: -0.48 mm; 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.18 mm; P = 0.004).
Conclusions: Five years after loading, 5 × 5 mm implants achieved similar results to longer implants placed in augmented bone. Short implants might be a preferable choice to bone augmentation especially in posterior mandibles since the treatment is faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity; however, 10-year post-loading data are necessary before making reliable recommendations.
Conflict of interest statement: MegaGen (Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) partially supported this trial and donated implants and prosthetic components used in this study. Tecnoss (Giaveno, Italy) donated the bone substitutes and the barriers. Data property belonged to the authors and the manufacturers did not interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of its results.
Keywords: bone substitute, inlay graft, short dental implant, sinus elevation, vertical augmentation