Materials and methods : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [2]
After a mean loading period of 5 years (range 2–7 years), the implants were clinically and radiologically analyzed to determine the overall implant success, mean survival and suitability for prosthetic rehabilitation, peri-implant hard and soft tissue health, and patient acceptance. Furthermore, peri-implant hard and soft tissue indices, such as bleeding on probing (BoP), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), and presence of peri-implant osteolysis, were analyzed.
Table 1 gives an overview of the patient information, implant localization, and implant data for the retrospectively investigated implants.
In the present retrospective study, Conelog® Screw-line implants (Camlog Biotechnologies, Basle, Suisse) of 7-mm length and of diameters of 3.8 mm, 4.3 mm, and 5.0 mm were used to replace missing teeth in the molar region of the maxilla. The implant system has a Morse-locking conical implant-abutment connection with platform switching and 3-point indexing. The Promote® surface of the implant system is manufactured by grit blasting and acid etching that support osseointegration.
After a mean period of 5 years (range 2–7 years), the patients were clinically and radiologically investigated at the Department for Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery of the Medical Center of Goethe University Frankfurt according to previously published methods [1, 3, 10].
The following parameters were investigated to determine the clinical suitability of the short-length implants and the peri-implant hard and soft tissue stability: implant survival, i.e., implants being in situ and suitable for prosthetic restoration; the width and thickness of the peri-implant keratinized gingiva (in mm); PPD (in mm); BoP; radiologically calculated MBL; and presence of peri-implant osteolysis. The PPD was measured at 4 sites (mesio-buccal, distal-buccal, mesio-oral, and disto-oral) with a blunt periodontal probe. Simultaneously, to the measurement of the probing pocket depths, the peri-implant soft tissue was checked to see if the probing provoked bleeding (BoP). The peri-implant MBL was calculated at digitally recorded perpendicular single-tooth images taken routinely after implant insertion and for the regular follow-up checks. The distance between the peri-implant marginal bone level and the implant shoulder serving as reference point was measured. Bone loss was measured mesially and distally, and a mean bone loss value from these measurements was calculated.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study
- Introduction : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [1]
- Introduction : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [2]
- Materials and methods : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [1]
- Materials and methods : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [2]
- Materials and methods : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [3]
- Results : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [1]
- Results : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [2]
- Discussion : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [1]
- Discussion : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [2]
- Conclusion : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study
- Abbreviations : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study
- References : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [1]
- References : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [2]
- Acknowledgements : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study
- Author information : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [1]
- Author information : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study [2]
- Ethics declarations : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study
- Rights and permissions : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study
- About this article : Short implants in the posterior maxilla to avoid sinus augmentation procedure: 5-year results from a retrospective cohort study
- Table 1 An overview of the patient information, implant localization, and implant data from the retrospectively investigated implants (Of: Short implant)
- Table 2 An overview of the results of the clinical and radiological follow-up investigation (Of: Short implant)
- Fig. 1. The clinical images of patient 4, with implant-supported single crowns in regions 26 and 27. No signs of a peri-implant infection, mucositis, peri-implantitis, or marginal bone loss were detected. a Occlusal view. b Left-side view. c Orthopantogram. d Close-up radiographic view : Short implant