Sangeeta Barman, Neelesh Singh, Vandana A Pant, Mohammad Aamir, Snigdha Biswas
{"title":"A naïve comparison to assess the success of ultra-short implants.","authors":"Sangeeta Barman, Neelesh Singh, Vandana A Pant, Mohammad Aamir, Snigdha Biswas","doi":"10.4103/njms.njms_82_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Conventional implants are associated with ridge augmentation/sinus lift procedures in vertically insufficient ridges, which increase morbidity and healing time. Short implants provided some hope in this context. The present study considered the use of ultra-short implants in vertically insufficient posterior mandibular ridges and evaluated their success. Hence, study was done to evaluate the success of ultra-short implants in partially edentulous posterior mandible clinically and radiographically.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study is a \"Naïve direct comparison\" of ultra-short implants to conventional implants for assessing their success in vertically insufficient posterior mandibular ridges. A total of 10 ultra-short implants were placed in a partially edentulous posterior mandibular ridge with at least 8-mm horizontal (at crest) and vertical dimensions. A delayed loading was done at three-month follow-up. Data acquisition was done at baseline (immediately after loading), 6-, 9-, 12-month intervals. Parameters assessed were marginal bone loss (MBL), probing pocket depth reduction (PPDR), modified plaque index (mPI), modified gingival index (mGI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All the placed 10 implants survived, and no failure was observed. \"Independent sample t-test\" and \"paired sample t-test\" was done for intergroup and intragroup analysis, respectively. Intergroup comparison between the ultra-short and conventional implants presented a statistically insignificant difference between all the parameters at all the follow-up visits (baseline, 6-, 9-, 12 months).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations, it was thus concluded that ultra-short implants may be considered as a viable treatment option for vertically insufficient mandibular ridge. Further, long-term randomized controlled trials are required to establish the evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":101444,"journal":{"name":"National journal of maxillofacial surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11057602/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National journal of maxillofacial surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/njms.njms_82_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Conventional implants are associated with ridge augmentation/sinus lift procedures in vertically insufficient ridges, which increase morbidity and healing time. Short implants provided some hope in this context. The present study considered the use of ultra-short implants in vertically insufficient posterior mandibular ridges and evaluated their success. Hence, study was done to evaluate the success of ultra-short implants in partially edentulous posterior mandible clinically and radiographically.
Materials and methods: The study is a "Naïve direct comparison" of ultra-short implants to conventional implants for assessing their success in vertically insufficient posterior mandibular ridges. A total of 10 ultra-short implants were placed in a partially edentulous posterior mandibular ridge with at least 8-mm horizontal (at crest) and vertical dimensions. A delayed loading was done at three-month follow-up. Data acquisition was done at baseline (immediately after loading), 6-, 9-, 12-month intervals. Parameters assessed were marginal bone loss (MBL), probing pocket depth reduction (PPDR), modified plaque index (mPI), modified gingival index (mGI).
Results: All the placed 10 implants survived, and no failure was observed. "Independent sample t-test" and "paired sample t-test" was done for intergroup and intragroup analysis, respectively. Intergroup comparison between the ultra-short and conventional implants presented a statistically insignificant difference between all the parameters at all the follow-up visits (baseline, 6-, 9-, 12 months).
Conclusions: Within the limitations, it was thus concluded that ultra-short implants may be considered as a viable treatment option for vertically insufficient mandibular ridge. Further, long-term randomized controlled trials are required to establish the evidence.