Open hour: senin - sabtu 09:00:00 - 20:00:00; minggu & tanggal merah tutup
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.

DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (1)

author: Felix L Gulj,Henny J A Meijer,Ingemar Abrahamsson,Christopher A Barwacz,Stephen Chen,Paul J Palmer,Homayoun Zadeh,Clark M Stanfo | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID

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:


id post:
New thoughts
Me:
search
glossary
en in