Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Apr 6;18(7):3846.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18073846.

Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial

Fabio Rossi  1 , Lorenzo Tuci  1 , Lorenzo Ferraioli  1 , Emanuele Ricci  1 , Andreea Suerica  2 , Daniele Botticelli  2 , Gerardo Pellegrino  1 , Pietro Felice  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial

Fabio Rossi et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: In edentulous patients, bone resorption cannot allow the installation of standard implants and it is demanded to use short implants in the residual alveolar bone or longer implants in grafted bone.

Aim: To compare the survival and bone level changes of standard plus short 4-mm implants used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with standard (10-mm) implants placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure.

Material and methods: Full-arch FDPs supported by six implants were randomly placed in both groups. In the control group, all implants were 10 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. The distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was installed after 4 months from bilaterally sinus floor elevation. In the test group (short group), the distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was 4 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. No sinus floor elevations were performed in the test group. Clinical assessments and X-rays were taken at prosthesis delivering and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also evaluated before surgery and after 6, 12, and 24 months.

Results: The changes over time of the bone level for the short implants were -0.01 ± 0.11 mm, -0.04 ± 0.13 mm, -0.17 ± 0.29 mm, and -0.28 ± 0.37 mm after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from prosthesis delivering, respectively. For the standard implants, bone changes were -0.21 ± 0.33 mm (p = 0.103), -0.30 ± 0.32 mm (p = 0.023), -0.40 ± 0.37 mm (p = 0.144), and -0.54 ± 0.49 mm (p = 0.128), respectively. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups.

Conclusions: Similar results on implant survival rate and marginal bone loss were observed for the short and standard implants, placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure, used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch FDP. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups (p = 0.023).

Keywords: full arch fixed dental prostheses; short implants; sinus floor elevation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Panoramic X-ray after treatment. Short (A) and control implants (B) were loaded with fixed full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Bilaterally, the most posterior implants were 4 mm long (A) or 10 mm long (B) that were installed after sinus floor augmentation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Clinical views, frontals and laterals, of fixed full-arch FDPs. (A–C) Short implant group. (D–F) Control implant group, with sinus floor elevation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
CONSORT 2010 flow diagram.
Figure 4
Figure 4
X-rays illustrating the situation of the short implant group immediately after loading (A,B), and after 24 months of loading (C,D).
Figure 5
Figure 5
X-rays illustrating the situation of the control implant group immediately after loading (A,B), and after 24 months of loading (C,D).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Apaza Alccayhuaman K.A., Soto-Peñaloza D., Nakajima Y., Papageorgiou S.N., Botticelli D., Lang N.P. Biological and technical complications of tilted implants in comparison with straight implants supporting fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral. Implant. Res. 2018;29(Suppl. S18):295–308. doi: 10.1111/clr.13279. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cucchi A., Ghensi P. Vertical Guided Bone Regeneration using Titanium-reinforced d-PTFE Membrane and PrehydratedCorticocancellous Bone Graft. Open Dent. J. 2014;8:194–200. doi: 10.2174/1874210601408010194. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Raghoebar G.M., Onclin P., Boven G.C., Vissink A., Meijer H.J.A. Long-term effectiveness of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019;46(Suppl. S21):307–318. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13055. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Esposito M., Grusovin M.G., Rees J., Karasoulos D., Felice P., Alissa R., Worthington H., Coulthard P. Effectiveness of sinus lift procedures for dental implant rehabilitation: A Cochrane systematic review. Eur. J. Oral. Implantol. 2010;3:7–26. - PubMed
    1. Menchini-Fabris G.B., Toti P., Crespi G., Covani U., Crespi R. Distal Displacement of Maxillary Sinus Anterior Wall Versus Conventional Sinus Lift with Lateral Access: A 3-Year Retrospective Computerized Tomography Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:7199. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197199. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources