Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Short vs standard implants associated with sinus floor elevation: a randomized controlled trial / Implantes curtos versus implantes convencionais associados à elevação do seixo maxilar: um ensaio clínico randomizado
Vetromilla, Bruna Muhlinberg; Luz-Silva, Guilherme da; Poletto-Neto, Victório; Fogaça, Antônio César Manentti; Pereira-Cenci, Tatiana.
  • Vetromilla, Bruna Muhlinberg; Federal University of Pelotas. Graduate Program in Dentistry. Pelotas. BR
  • Luz-Silva, Guilherme da; Federal University of Pelotas. School of Dentistry. Pelotas. BR
  • Poletto-Neto, Victório; Federal University of Pelotas. Graduate Program in Dentistry. Pelotas. BR
  • Fogaça, Antônio César Manentti; Federal University of Pelotas,. School of Dentistry. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Pelotas. BR
  • Pereira-Cenci, Tatiana; Federal University of Pelotas. School of Dentistry. Department of Restorative Dentistry. Pelotas. BR
RFO UPF ; 26(1): 31-37, 20210327. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS, BBO | ID: biblio-1428578
ABSTRACT

Objective:

the present equivalence two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial aimed to compare survival and marginal bone loss (MBL) of short implants (≤6 mm) and standard implants (≥8.5 mm) associated with sinus floor elevation (SFE).

Methods:

adult patients with partial edentulism with occlusal stability in the sinus area and intermediate bone height were selected in this double-blind trial (patient and outcome assessment). Patients were randomly allocated into two groups standard length implants with SFE (control) or short implants (test). Clinical and radiographic assessments were made at the time of implant placement, 6 months, and annually thereafter up to 2 years after loading. The inter-examiner agreement was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). One-way ANOVA, Kaplan-Meier, and Log-rank tests were used to compare implant survival (primary outcome) and MBL (secondary outcome) (P<0.05).

Results:

eight short implants and six standard implants were placed (mean age of patients was 47 ±12.5 years). The implant survival rates were 87.5% for short (one 5 mm implant failed at 7 months) and 100% for standard implants with no statistically significant difference between groups (P=0.4). The mean MBL after 1 year was 0.30 ±0.62 mm for short and 0.21 ±0.36 mm for standard implants (P=0.123). The inter-examiner agreement was set in 0.831.

Conclusion:

survival of short implants and standard implants associated with SFE was similar after two years of clinical service. Trial registration Registered on 27-03-2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03479333).

Funding:

This study was partially funded by Capes Finance Code 001 and #88881.187933/2018-01. TPC is partially funded by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq - Brazil). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.(AU)
RESUMO

Objetivo:

o presente ensaio clínico randomizado de dois braços de equivalência comparou a taxa de sobrevivência e a perda óssea marginal de implantes curtos (≤ 6 mm) e implantes convencionais (≥ 8.5 mm) associados à elevação do seio maxilar.

Métodos:

edêntulos parciais adultos, com estabilidade oclusal e altura óssea intermediária na região do seio maxilar, foram selecionados neste estudo duplo-cego e alocados randomicamente em dois grupos implante de comprimento convencional associado à elevação do seio maxilar (controle) ou implante curto (teste). Avaliações clínicas e radiográficas foram realizadas logo após a instalação do implante, seis meses e anualmente por até dois anos. A concordância interexaminador foi avaliada através do coeficiente de correlação intraclasse. Os testes ANOVA de uma via, Kaplan-Meier e Log-rank foram utilizados para comparar a sobrevivência do implante e a perda óssea marginal (P<0.05).

Resultados:

oito implantes curtos e seis implantes de comprimento convencional foram instalados em onze pacientes (média de idade dos pacientes 47 ± 12.5 anos). As taxas de sobrevivência dos implantes foram de 87,5% para implantes curtos (um implante de 5 mm falhou aos sete meses), e 100% para implantes convencionais, sem diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os grupos (P=0.4). A perda óssea marginal média após um ano foi de 0.30 ±0.62 mm para implantes curtos e 0.21 ±0.36 mm para implantes convencionais (P=0.123). A concordância interexaminador foi de 0.831.

Conclusão:

a taxa de sobrevivência de implantes curtos e convencionais associados ao seio maxilar foi semelhante após dois anos de acompanhamento. Registro do estudo Registrado em 27-03-2018 no ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03479333).(AU)
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Sinus Floor Augmentation Type of study: Controlled clinical trial / Prognostic study / Risk factors Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Language: English Journal: RFO UPF Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2021 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Federal University of Pelotas/BR / Federal University of Pelotas,/BR

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Sinus Floor Augmentation Type of study: Controlled clinical trial / Prognostic study / Risk factors Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Language: English Journal: RFO UPF Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2021 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Federal University of Pelotas/BR / Federal University of Pelotas,/BR