DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (1)
DISCUSSION
Both 6‐mm short implants and 11‐mm conventional length implants performed well to support a fixed denture prosthesis in the posterior region of maxilla and mandible. A high implant survival rate, limited peri‐implant bone change, healthy peri‐implant soft tissues and limited biological and technical complications were noticed during the 5‐year functional period.
There was a 5‐years implant survival rate of 96.0% and 98.9%, respectively, for the 6‐mm and 11‐mm group, without any significant differences. Recent clinical studies with 5‐year results on performance of short 6‐mm implants, compared to longer implants (Felice et al., 2019; Guljé et al., 2019; Naenni et al., 2018; Rossi et al., 2016; Thoma et al., 2018) also showed no significant difference between the short implants and longer implants. Implant survival rates in the short‐implant groups varied from 86.7% to 98.5% and from 96.7% to 100% in the longer‐implant groups. Although not significantly different, implant survival rate in the short‐implant groups was always lower than in the longer‐implant groups. This was already seen in the systematic review of Telleman et al. (2011), stating that there was a tendency toward an increasing survival rate per implant length. Analysis of the time point when the implants were lost showed that in the present study three short implants were lost during the osseointegration period, possibly suggesting that the surgical procedure is more critical reaching stability. However, comparison with the aforementioned studies could not confirm this idea, as in these studies short implants were lost throughout the entire evaluation period.
From loading to the 5‐year follow‐up, a mean marginal bone level change of 0.01 ± 0.45 mm (bone gain) in the 6‐mm group and −0.12 ± 0.93 mm (bone loss) in the 11‐mm group was found (Table 1), without a significant difference between the groups (p = .7670). Bone loss in the present study can best be compared with the 5‐year follow‐up study of Thoma et al. (2018) and Guljé et al. (2019), because the same implant system and endpoints were evaluated.
Serial posts:
- Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants in the posterior region
- Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (1)
- Figure 1: patient with two 6‐mm implants
- Figure 1a: Five‐year follow‐up radiograph of patient with two 6‐mm implants
- Figure 1b. Five‐year follow‐up clinical photograph of patient with two 6‐mm implants
- Figure 2. Five‐year follow‐up of patient with two 11‐mm implants
- Figure 2a. Five‐year follow‐up radiograph of patient with two 11‐mm implants
- Figure 2b. Five‐year follow‐up photograph of patient with two 11‐mm implants
- Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (2)
- Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (3)
- Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (4)
- Results : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants
- Table 1. Baseline characteristics
- Table 2. Mean value (in mm), standard deviation (SD), and frequency distribution
- Table 3. Clinical measures of implants
- Table 4. Number of technical complications at implant level and patient level
- DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (1)
- DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (2)
- DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (3)
- DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (4)
- CONCLUSIONS : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants