National journal of maxillofacial surgery · 2024
A naïve comparison to assess the success of ultra-short implants.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Barman Sangeeta, Singh Neelesh, Pant Vandana A, Aamir Mohammad, Biswas Snigdha
Аннотация
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.
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.