Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (1)
2 MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1 Study design
The study outline has been described before in the 1‐year report of Guljé et al. (2013) and the 3‐year report of Zadeh et al. (2018). Inclusion/exclusion criteria, treatment and evaluation procedures are described in detail in these publications. The present report has been prepared in accordance with guidelines outlined in the CONSORT statement for reporting of randomized controlled trials (Moher et al., 2010). A summary of the procedures utilized in the present 5‐year evaluation is described below.
The design was an international multicenter randomized clinical trial. The study groups were:
- 6‐mm group: patients to receive two or three 6‐mm implants (to replace two or three missing premolars/molars) and a fixed denture prosthesis (Figure 1);
- 11‐mm group: patients to receive two or three 11‐mm implants (to replace two or three missing premolars/molars) and a fixed denture prosthesis (Figure 2).
Titanium implants (either 6 mm in length or 11 mm in length) with a diameter of 4 mm were used (OsseoSpeed implants, Dentsply Sirona Implants).
The study protocol was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (registration number NCT00545818) prior to its commencement. The study took place at six centers in six countries worldwide. All six study centers obtained approval of their institutional review boards or medical ethics committees prior to the initiation of the study. The enrollment of participants started November 2007 and the last patient was included in June 2010.
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