Long-Term Comparative Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Maxillary Sinus Elevation in Posterior Maxilla Rehabilitation.

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Eduardo Anitua, Laura Piñas, Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat
{"title":"Long-Term Comparative Outcomes of Short Implants Versus Maxillary Sinus Elevation in Posterior Maxilla Rehabilitation.","authors":"Eduardo Anitua, Laura Piñas, Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat","doi":"10.3390/dj13010012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Vertical atrophy of the maxilla has traditionally been treated with sinus lift procedures and implant placement, performed in one or two surgical stages. Subsequently, the transcrestal sinus lift technique was introduced, offering distinct advantages in terms of indications and reduced morbidity. Most recently, short implants have emerged as a valid alternative to these procedures, even in cases of severe horizontal resorption, allowing for direct placement in many cases. This study was designed to assess the clinical outcomes of short implant placement in alveolar ridges with severe bone atrophy, compared with conventional-length implants placed in areas undergoing conventional sinus elevation. <b>Methods</b>: A retrospective split-mouth study was conducted to compare conventional sinus elevation with standard-length implants versus short implants for addressing vertical bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla. The primary variable was the variation in the marginal bone level. The secondary variables were implant survival and complications. The evaluation of the statistical significance of the difference in categorical variables was accomplished by Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. The comparison between the study groups in continuous variables was performed using Wilcoxon test. The statistical significance was set at <i>p</i>-value < 0.05. <b>Results</b>: The study sample consisted of 24 patients and a total of 73 dental implants. The lateral sinus elevation group (LSEG) included 39 implants, while the short implants group (SIG) included 32 implants. All prostheses were screw-retained. Changes in marginal bone levels indicated a marginal bone loss of less than 0.5 mm in both groups, with no statistically significant difference. In the LSEG, two cases of mucositis were identified, attributed to improper use of an interdental brush. Additionally, two cases of prosthetic screw fracture were reported in the LSEG as technical complications. <b>Conclusions</b>: Long-term outcome data have provided evidence that the use of short implants is comparable to a state-of-the-art procedure (sinus grafting and placement of implants) regarding implant survival, marginal bone remodeling, and complication rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11764229/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13010012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vertical atrophy of the maxilla has traditionally been treated with sinus lift procedures and implant placement, performed in one or two surgical stages. Subsequently, the transcrestal sinus lift technique was introduced, offering distinct advantages in terms of indications and reduced morbidity. Most recently, short implants have emerged as a valid alternative to these procedures, even in cases of severe horizontal resorption, allowing for direct placement in many cases. This study was designed to assess the clinical outcomes of short implant placement in alveolar ridges with severe bone atrophy, compared with conventional-length implants placed in areas undergoing conventional sinus elevation. Methods: A retrospective split-mouth study was conducted to compare conventional sinus elevation with standard-length implants versus short implants for addressing vertical bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla. The primary variable was the variation in the marginal bone level. The secondary variables were implant survival and complications. The evaluation of the statistical significance of the difference in categorical variables was accomplished by Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. The comparison between the study groups in continuous variables was performed using Wilcoxon test. The statistical significance was set at p-value < 0.05. Results: The study sample consisted of 24 patients and a total of 73 dental implants. The lateral sinus elevation group (LSEG) included 39 implants, while the short implants group (SIG) included 32 implants. All prostheses were screw-retained. Changes in marginal bone levels indicated a marginal bone loss of less than 0.5 mm in both groups, with no statistically significant difference. In the LSEG, two cases of mucositis were identified, attributed to improper use of an interdental brush. Additionally, two cases of prosthetic screw fracture were reported in the LSEG as technical complications. Conclusions: Long-term outcome data have provided evidence that the use of short implants is comparable to a state-of-the-art procedure (sinus grafting and placement of implants) regarding implant survival, marginal bone remodeling, and complication rates.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信