Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2017
Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: Three-year results of a randomized clinical study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Taschieri Silvio, Lolato Alessandra, Testori Tiziano, Francetti Luca, Del Fabbro Massimo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Several treatment options exist for the implant-supported rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla.
PURPOSE: To compare maxillary sinus floor augmentation associated to standard length implants, with direct placement of implants of reduced length in the available residual bone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with edentulous posterior maxilla and a residual height of 4-7 mm were randomly allocated to the test (short implants [SIs], 6.5 to 8.5mm long) or the control (sinus augmentation [SA] and implants ≥10mm long) group. Anorganic bovine bone was the grafting material for the control group. In both groups pure platelet-rich plasma was used to bioactivate implant surface prior to insertion. Implant and prosthesis survival, clinical variables, radiographic bone level change, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were assessed.
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were treated in the control group (58 standard length implants) and 27 in the test group (42 SIs). After 3 years of follow-up no implant failure and biological or mechanical complications were recorded. Marginal bone loss, soft tissue, and oral hygiene parameters were similar in the 2 groups at both 1 and 3 years' follow-up. Postoperative pain, swelling and other symptoms and daily activities were better in the SIs group than in the SA group, while patients' satisfaction after 1 year was similar.
CONCLUSIONS: In spite of comparable medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, when the residual ridge height is sufficient for a safe placement, SIs may be preferred due to simplified protocol, less invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced postoperative discomfort as compared to SA.
PURPOSE: To compare maxillary sinus floor augmentation associated to standard length implants, with direct placement of implants of reduced length in the available residual bone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with edentulous posterior maxilla and a residual height of 4-7 mm were randomly allocated to the test (short implants [SIs], 6.5 to 8.5mm long) or the control (sinus augmentation [SA] and implants ≥10mm long) group. Anorganic bovine bone was the grafting material for the control group. In both groups pure platelet-rich plasma was used to bioactivate implant surface prior to insertion. Implant and prosthesis survival, clinical variables, radiographic bone level change, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were assessed.
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were treated in the control group (58 standard length implants) and 27 in the test group (42 SIs). After 3 years of follow-up no implant failure and biological or mechanical complications were recorded. Marginal bone loss, soft tissue, and oral hygiene parameters were similar in the 2 groups at both 1 and 3 years' follow-up. Postoperative pain, swelling and other symptoms and daily activities were better in the SIs group than in the SA group, while patients' satisfaction after 1 year was similar.
CONCLUSIONS: In spite of comparable medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, when the residual ridge height is sufficient for a safe placement, SIs may be preferred due to simplified protocol, less invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced postoperative discomfort as compared to SA.