International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany) · 2023
Extra-short (4-mm) implants placed after regenerative failures in the posterior atrophic mandible: A retrospective study.
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.
Barausse Carlo, Ravidà Andrea, Bonifazi Lorenzo, Pistilli Roberto, Saleh Muhammad H A, Gasparro Roberta, Sammartino Gilberto, Wang Hom-Lay, Felice Pietro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To explore whether extra-short (4-mm) implants could be used to rehabilitate sites where regenerative procedures had failed in order to avoid additional bone grafting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted among patients who had received extra-short implants after failed regenerative procedures in the posterior atrophic mandible. The research outcomes were complications, implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss.
RESULTS: The study population was composed of 35 patients with 103 extra-short implants placed after the failure of different reconstructive approaches. The mean follow-up duration was 41.3 ± 21.4 months post-loading. Two implants failed, leading to a failure rate of 1.94% (95% confidence interval 0.24%-6.84%) and an implant survival rate of 98.06%. The mean amount of marginal bone loss at 5 years post-loading was 0.32 ± 0.32 mm. It was significantly lower in extra-short implants placed in regenerative sites that had previously received a loaded long implant (P = 0.004). Failure of guided bone regeneration before placement of short implants tended to lead to the highest annual rate of marginal bone loss (P = 0.089). The overall rate of biological and prosthetic complications was 6.79% (95% confidence interval 1.94%-11.70%) and 3.88% (95% confidence interval 1.07%-9.65%), respectively. The success rate was 86.4% (95% confidence interval 65.10%-97.10%) after 5 years of loading.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, extra-short implants seem to be a good clinical option to manage reconstructive surgical failures, reducing surgical invasiveness and rehabilitation time.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted among patients who had received extra-short implants after failed regenerative procedures in the posterior atrophic mandible. The research outcomes were complications, implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss.
RESULTS: The study population was composed of 35 patients with 103 extra-short implants placed after the failure of different reconstructive approaches. The mean follow-up duration was 41.3 ± 21.4 months post-loading. Two implants failed, leading to a failure rate of 1.94% (95% confidence interval 0.24%-6.84%) and an implant survival rate of 98.06%. The mean amount of marginal bone loss at 5 years post-loading was 0.32 ± 0.32 mm. It was significantly lower in extra-short implants placed in regenerative sites that had previously received a loaded long implant (P = 0.004). Failure of guided bone regeneration before placement of short implants tended to lead to the highest annual rate of marginal bone loss (P = 0.089). The overall rate of biological and prosthetic complications was 6.79% (95% confidence interval 1.94%-11.70%) and 3.88% (95% confidence interval 1.07%-9.65%), respectively. The success rate was 86.4% (95% confidence interval 65.10%-97.10%) after 5 years of loading.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, extra-short implants seem to be a good clinical option to manage reconstructive surgical failures, reducing surgical invasiveness and rehabilitation time.