6 mm vs 10 mm-long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior jaws: A 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare survival and success rates of 6 mm-long and 10 mm-long implants in partially edentulous posterior areas.

Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients with a partially edentulous area were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated according to a parallel group design to receive 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants. A total of 54 implants were placed (26 × 6 mm implants). Patients were followed for 10 years after prosthetic loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival, marginal bone level changes and complications.

Results: After 10 years, 17 patients (eight with 6 mm implants and nine with 10 mm implants) were available: three 6 mm and four 10 mm patients were lost to follow-up. One 6 mm implant failed during the healing period and its related prosthesis could not be placed. No implants were lost after loading. Nine patients in the 6 mm group registered a total of 15 complications: two mucositis, six decementations and seven chippings. Ten patients in the 10 mm group registered a total of 13 complications: five mucositis, two decementations and six chippings. Overall the difference for complications between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.22; difference in proportion = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.27). Decementations in the 6 mm group were statistically significant higher than the 10 mm group (P = 0.04; difference in proportion = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.74). Marginal bone loss at 10 years was 0.84 and 0.37 mm with the 6 mm and 10 mm groups, respectively (difference between the two groups 0.49 mm; 95% CI -0.31; 1.29; not statistically significant: t test P = 0.22).

Conclusions: Rehabilitations supported by 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants showed similar clinical outcomes in terms of survival and success rates, although 6 mm implants had more decementations.