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).
Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (3)
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
2.3 Outcome
Evaluated parameters were:
- Implant failure (noted at any time throughout the 5‐year follow‐up period);
- Presence of plaque, probing depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BoP) was measured on four sites (mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual) around the implant (measured at time of provisional restoration, at time of definitive restoration and at annual follow‐up visits);
- Radiographic peri‐implant bone level changes (mean of mesial and distal aspects of each implant) with the intraoral radiograph taken at time of provisional restoration, as baseline and compared with the radiograph at 5‐year evaluation. An independent, external radiologist evaluated all radiographs. The interproximal threaded profile of the implants, both mesially and distally, had to be clearly visible and the distance was recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm using a 7× magnifying device.
- Prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis (implant level). The prevalence of mucositis and peri‐implantitis at the 5‐year evaluation was determined, based on the criteria outlined in the consensus document by Berglundh et al. (2018). The criteria include: (a) bleeding/suppuration on gentle probing, (b) any increased probing depth compared to previous examination (c) interproximal radiographic bone loss greater than 0.5 mm after initial remodeling (loading). Peri‐implant mucositis was diagnosed in sites exhibiting bleeding on gentle probing that did not have the radiographic bone loss.
- Presence of technical or biological complications (noted any time throughout the follow‐up period).
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