Eduardo Anitua, Adriana Montalvillo, Asier Eguia, Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat
{"title":"Clinical Performance of Extra-Short (≤5.5 mm) Compared to Longer Implants Splinted under the Same Prosthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Eduardo Anitua, Adriana Montalvillo, Asier Eguia, Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat","doi":"10.3390/dj12090292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> This randomized controlled split-mouth trial compared the performance of 5.5 mm length implants (test group; TG) splinted within the same fixed prosthesis as longer implants (≥6.5 mm; control group; CG) in posterior regions. <b>Methods:</b> The primary hypothesis was that implant length does not affect marginal bone loss (MBL) one year post-implantation, while the secondary hypotheses included implant survival, peri-implant clinical variables, and prosthetic complications. Fifteen patients (eight males, seven females) with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years were included. <b>Results:</b> No significant difference in the implant position between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.808) was observed. Implant diameters ranged from 3.00 to 4.25 mm, and the most common bone type was type I (67%). Bone density (<i>p</i> = 0.574) and implant insertion torque (<i>p</i> = 0.888) were similar between groups. Mesial MBL (mean: -0.1; range: -1.19 to 0.24 for TG, and -0.03; -1.75 to 0.45 for CG; <i>p</i> = 0.955) and distal MBL (mean: -0.05; range: -1.41 to 0.27 for TG, and 0.08; -1.45 to 0.72 for CG; <i>p</i> = 0.118) did not show statistical differences. There were no implant failures or technical complications. <b>Conclusions:</b> These findings suggest that 5.5 mm length implants could be a viable option for use in posterior regions, providing similar clinical outcomes to longer implants one year post-implantation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11431532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12090292","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
Objective: This randomized controlled split-mouth trial compared the performance of 5.5 mm length implants (test group; TG) splinted within the same fixed prosthesis as longer implants (≥6.5 mm; control group; CG) in posterior regions. Methods: The primary hypothesis was that implant length does not affect marginal bone loss (MBL) one year post-implantation, while the secondary hypotheses included implant survival, peri-implant clinical variables, and prosthetic complications. Fifteen patients (eight males, seven females) with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years were included. Results: No significant difference in the implant position between groups (p = 0.808) was observed. Implant diameters ranged from 3.00 to 4.25 mm, and the most common bone type was type I (67%). Bone density (p = 0.574) and implant insertion torque (p = 0.888) were similar between groups. Mesial MBL (mean: -0.1; range: -1.19 to 0.24 for TG, and -0.03; -1.75 to 0.45 for CG; p = 0.955) and distal MBL (mean: -0.05; range: -1.41 to 0.27 for TG, and 0.08; -1.45 to 0.72 for CG; p = 0.118) did not show statistical differences. There were no implant failures or technical complications. Conclusions: These findings suggest that 5.5 mm length implants could be a viable option for use in posterior regions, providing similar clinical outcomes to longer implants one year post-implantation.