Carlo Barausse, Andrea Ravidà, Lorenzo Bonifazi, Roberto Pistilli, Muhammad H A Saleh, Roberta Gasparro, Gilberto Sammartino, Hom-Lay Wang, Pietro Felice
{"title":"后萎缩下颌骨再生失败后放置超短(4毫米)种植体:一项回顾性研究。","authors":"Carlo Barausse, Andrea Ravidà, Lorenzo Bonifazi, Roberto Pistilli, Muhammad H A Saleh, Roberta Gasparro, Gilberto Sammartino, Hom-Lay Wang, Pietro Felice","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To explore whether extra-short (4-mm) implants could be used to rehabilitate sites where regenerative procedures had failed in order to avoid additional bone grafting.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted among patients who had received extra-short implants after failed regenerative procedures in the posterior atrophic mandible. The research outcomes were complications, implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study population was composed of 35 patients with 103 extra-short implants placed after the failure of different reconstructive approaches. The mean follow-up duration was 41.3 ± 21.4 months post-loading. Two implants failed, leading to a failure rate of 1.94% (95% confidence interval 0.24%-6.84%) and an implant survival rate of 98.06%. The mean amount of marginal bone loss at 5 years post-loading was 0.32 ± 0.32 mm. It was significantly lower in extra-short implants placed in regenerative sites that had previously received a loaded long implant (P = 0.004). Failure of guided bone regeneration before placement of short implants tended to lead to the highest annual rate of marginal bone loss (P = 0.089). The overall rate of biological and prosthetic complications was 6.79% (95% confidence interval 1.94%-11.70%) and 3.88% (95% confidence interval 1.07%-9.65%), respectively. The success rate was 86.4% (95% confidence interval 65.10%-97.10%) after 5 years of loading.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, extra-short implants seem to be a good clinical option to manage reconstructive surgical failures, reducing surgical invasiveness and rehabilitation time.</p>","PeriodicalId":73463,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","volume":"16 1","pages":"31-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extra-short (4-mm) implants placed after regenerative failures in the posterior atrophic mandible: A retrospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Carlo Barausse, Andrea Ravidà, Lorenzo Bonifazi, Roberto Pistilli, Muhammad H A Saleh, Roberta Gasparro, Gilberto Sammartino, Hom-Lay Wang, Pietro Felice\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To explore whether extra-short (4-mm) implants could be used to rehabilitate sites where regenerative procedures had failed in order to avoid additional bone grafting.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted among patients who had received extra-short implants after failed regenerative procedures in the posterior atrophic mandible. The research outcomes were complications, implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study population was composed of 35 patients with 103 extra-short implants placed after the failure of different reconstructive approaches. The mean follow-up duration was 41.3 ± 21.4 months post-loading. Two implants failed, leading to a failure rate of 1.94% (95% confidence interval 0.24%-6.84%) and an implant survival rate of 98.06%. The mean amount of marginal bone loss at 5 years post-loading was 0.32 ± 0.32 mm. It was significantly lower in extra-short implants placed in regenerative sites that had previously received a loaded long implant (P = 0.004). Failure of guided bone regeneration before placement of short implants tended to lead to the highest annual rate of marginal bone loss (P = 0.089). The overall rate of biological and prosthetic complications was 6.79% (95% confidence interval 1.94%-11.70%) and 3.88% (95% confidence interval 1.07%-9.65%), respectively. The success rate was 86.4% (95% confidence interval 65.10%-97.10%) after 5 years of loading.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, extra-short implants seem to be a good clinical option to manage reconstructive surgical failures, reducing surgical invasiveness and rehabilitation time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"31-38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Extra-short (4-mm) implants placed after regenerative failures in the posterior atrophic mandible: A retrospective study.
Purpose: To explore whether extra-short (4-mm) implants could be used to rehabilitate sites where regenerative procedures had failed in order to avoid additional bone grafting.
Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted among patients who had received extra-short implants after failed regenerative procedures in the posterior atrophic mandible. The research outcomes were complications, implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss.
Results: The study population was composed of 35 patients with 103 extra-short implants placed after the failure of different reconstructive approaches. The mean follow-up duration was 41.3 ± 21.4 months post-loading. Two implants failed, leading to a failure rate of 1.94% (95% confidence interval 0.24%-6.84%) and an implant survival rate of 98.06%. The mean amount of marginal bone loss at 5 years post-loading was 0.32 ± 0.32 mm. It was significantly lower in extra-short implants placed in regenerative sites that had previously received a loaded long implant (P = 0.004). Failure of guided bone regeneration before placement of short implants tended to lead to the highest annual rate of marginal bone loss (P = 0.089). The overall rate of biological and prosthetic complications was 6.79% (95% confidence interval 1.94%-11.70%) and 3.88% (95% confidence interval 1.07%-9.65%), respectively. The success rate was 86.4% (95% confidence interval 65.10%-97.10%) after 5 years of loading.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, extra-short implants seem to be a good clinical option to manage reconstructive surgical failures, reducing surgical invasiveness and rehabilitation time.