CONCLUSIONS
The present study found no significant difference between the clinical performance, including peri‐implant bone level changes and implant survival, of implants with 6 mm and 11 mm lengths, inserted in minimally resorbed edentulous spaces in the posterior maxilla and mandible, during a 5‐year follow‐up period.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Felix L. Guljé: Conceptualization (eq...
No analysis was performed if there was a possible difference in outcomes between the different centers. One reason is that the number of patients was not equally divided between the centers, making exploration for significant differences hardly reasonable. Next to this, randomization was performed using a block randomization sequence to provide equal distribution of subjects treate...
In the publication of Thoma et al. (2018), it was mentioned that there was 2% peri‐implantitis in the 6‐mm group and 0% in the longer‐implant group. Guljé et al. (2019) observed no peri‐implantitis in either groups. These numbers are low and very much alike the present study, although it should be noted that these studies used a slightly different definition of peri‐impl...
Thoma et al. (2018) reported a mean marginal bone level change of −0.12 ± 0.54 in the 6‐mm group and −0.18 ± 0.96 in the group with longer implants, without a significant difference between the groups. Guljé et al. (2019) reported a mean marginal bone level change of −0.12 ± 0.36 mm and −0.14 ± 0.63 mm in the 6‐mm group and the 11‐mm group, respectively, without ...
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 ...
Table 4. Number of technical complications at implant level and patient level (between brackets) during 5 years of follow‐up
6‐mm group
n implants = 97
(npatients = 46)
11‐mm group
n implants = 86
(npatients = 39)
Fracture of provisional restoration
3 (3)
3 (3)
Fracture of definitive restoration
0 (0)
0 (0)
Fracture of veneering
0 (0)...
Table 3. Clinical measures of implants with plaque (in percentages), implants with bleeding on probing (in percentages) and mean (±SD) probing depth at implant level (in mm) at T0 (placement and loading of provisional restoration) and at T60 (5‐year follow‐up after loading of provisional restoration), and p‐value of differences between the groups at both evaluation periods
...
Table 2. Mean value (in mm), standard deviation (SD), and frequency distribution in (number and percentages) of marginal bone change between loading and 5 years in function
6‐mm group (n = 94)
11‐mm group (n = 80)
mean bone change (SD)
+0.01 (0.45)
−0.12 (0.93)
bone loss>−2.0 down
1 (1.1%)
6 (7.5%)
bone loss>−2.0 up to and including −1.5
1 (1.1...
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the 6‐mm group (49 participants with 108 implants) and the 11‐mm group (46 participants with 101 implants)
Group 6‐mm
Group 11‐mm
Mean age in years
55 ± 9, range 26–69
54 ± 10, range 34–70
Gender (number male/female)
21/28
27/19
Received a 2‐implant restoration
39
37
Received a 3‐implant restorati...
Forty‐nine patients were randomized to receive 6‐mm implants (test group) and 46 patients to receive 11‐mm implants (control group). The baseline characteristic of the patients is depicted in Table 1. A flow‐diagram from enrollment to 5‐year follow‐up can be found in Figure 3. A total of 209 implants were inserted: 108 implants in the 6‐mm group and 101 implants in the 11‐mm group....
2.4 Statistical analysis
The number of patients required per group was calculated after assuming a two‐sided hypothesis to be rejected if the p‐value was below 5% and with a power of 80%. Primary outcome was mean peri‐implant bone level change, measured per implant, and a mean difference of 0.5 mm (standard deviation 0.8 mm) was chosen as a meaningful level of difference to be detected. ...
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);
Ra...
2.2 Surgical and prosthetic procedures
To be included in the study, participants had to have an edentulous space during at least 4 months, spanning 2–3 teeth in the posterior maxilla or mandible and presence of natural teeth, partial prosthesis and/or implants in the opposite jaw in contact with the planned bridge. Patients also had to be able to receive an 11 mm long and 4 mm wide dental im...
Figure 2b. Five‐year follow‐up photograph of patient with two 11‐mm implants
Figure 2a. Five‐year follow‐up radiograph of patient with two 11‐mm implants
Figure 2. Five‐year follow‐up radiograph (a) and clinical photograph (b) of patient with two 11‐mm implants
Figure 1b. Five year follow‐up clinical photograph of patient with two 6 mm implants
Figure 1a. Five‐year follow‐up radiograph of patient with two 6‐mm implants
Figure 1. Five‐year follow‐up radiograph (a) and clinical photograph (b) of patient with two 6‐mm implants
Figure 1. Five‐year follow‐up radiograph (a) and clinical photograph (b) of patient with two 6‐mm implants
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...
Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5‐year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial
First published: 06 October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13674
Abstract
Objective
The aim of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6‐mm or 11...