Short (6-mm) dental implants versus sinus floor elevation and placement of longer (≥10-mm) dental implants: a randomized controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether short (6-mm) dental implants could be an alternative to sinus floor elevation (SFE) and placement of longer (≥10-mm) implants in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a 3-year period, all patients presenting with partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla were considered for inclusion in this randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly chosen either to receive short (6-mm) implants (test group [TG]) or to undergo SFE with simultaneous placement of standard-length (≥10-mm) implants (control group [CG]). SFE was performed using the lateral technique. In both groups, tapered implants (AnyRidge, MegaGen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) were placed. All implants were loaded after 4 months of healing. At each annual follow-up session, clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed. Primary outcomes were implant survival, stability (measured with the implant stability quotient [ISQ]), marginal bone loss (MBL), and complications; secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and treatment time and cost. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were assigned to the TG and 20 to the CG. Forty-five implants were inserted in each group. At 3 years, implant survival rates were 100% and 95.0% for the TG and CG, respectively; this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.38). The mean ISQ values of the TG and CG did not differ at placement (68.2 vs. 67.8, P = 0.1), at delivery of the final restoration (69.5 vs. 69.4, P = 0.9), and after 1 year (71.0 vs. 71.5, P = 0.1); at 3 years, the CG had a significantly higher mean ISQ than the TG (72.4 vs. 71.6, P = 0.004). Mean MBL was significantly higher in the CG than in the TG, both at 1 year (0.14 mm vs. 0.21 mm, P = 0.006) and at 3 years (0.20 mm vs. 0.27 mm, P = 0.01). A few complications were reported. Surgical time and cost were significantly higher in the CG than in the TG (P < 0.0001). Patient satisfaction was high in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, results for short (6-mm) implants were similar to those for longer (≥10-mm) implants in augmented bone. Short implants might be preferable to SFE, because the treatment is faster and less expensive. Long-term randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these results.

Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: demographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading.

AIM: To test whether or not the use of short dental implants (6 mm) results in an implant survival rate similar to long implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus grafting. METHODS: This multicentre study enrolled 101 patients with a posterior maxillary bone height of 5-7 mm. Patients randomly received short implants (6 mm) (group short) or long implants (11-15 mm) with sinus grafting (group graft). Six months later, implants were loaded with single crowns and patients re-examined at 1 year of loading. Outcomes included treatment time, price calculations, safety, patient-reported outcome measures (OHIP-49 = Oral Health Impact Profile) and implant survival. Statistical analysis was performed using a non-parametric approach. RESULTS: In 101 patients, 137 implants were placed. Mean surgical time was 52.6 min. (group short) and 74.6 min. (group graft). Mean costs amounted to 941EUR (group short) and 1946EUR (group graft). Mean severity scores between suture removal and baseline revealed a statistically significant decrease for most OHIP dimensions in group graft only. At 1 year, 97 patients with 132 implants were re-examined. The implant survival rate was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities can be considered suitable for implant therapy in the atrophied posterior maxilla. Short implants may be more favourable regarding short-term patient morbidity, treatment time and price.

Maxillary sinus augmentation with iliac autograft - a health-economic analysis.

PURPOSE: To estimate and compare the costs of maxillary sinus augmentation performed with autologous bone graft either from the iliac crest or from local bone harvested from the mandibula. To evaluate post-operative health-related quality-of-life parameters for patients subjected to sinus augmentation and iliac bone surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The hospital records of 14 patients subjected to sinus augmentation with iliac autograft, and 14 patients treated with local autograft, were analysed with regard to costs related to surgery, hospitalization and sick leave. Post-operative health parameters were assessed with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean hospital costs, administration excluded, for sinus augmentation with iliac autograft was €3447. Policlinic treatment alternatives e.g. local bone autograft with or without bone substitutes, rendered costs of approximately 42% thereof. The loss of production for a worker was 41% of the total cost (€9285). With regard to health-related quality-of-life and post-operative morbidity, most of the patients had recovered 14 days after the iliac graft surgery. CONCLUSION: The cost for a sinus augmentation with iliac surgery exceeds that of a policlinic procedure manifold. Provided that a policlinic operation with local bone, with or without bone substitute, renders an adequate end result, the economic gain would be substantial and post-operative morbidity would be greatly reduced.

Alternative to the gold standard for sinus augmentation: osteotome sinus elevation.

The development of sinus augmentation procedures has diminished the problem of proper implant placement in the posterior maxilla in patients that have a pneumatized maxillary sinus and reduced alveolar bone. The gold standard approach to augmentation--the external sinus augmentation--was developed years ago and is still touted as the best approach for creating maxillary posterior bone. However, external sinus augmentation procedures are often quite traumatic, time-consuming, and costly, and they have anatomical limitations and considerable documented morbidity. This article discusses the external procedure and contrasts it with an internal sinus augmentation with osteotomes that is as effective in promoting sinus augmentation, is localized and relatively atraumatic, can be performed rapidly, is reasonable in cost, and has negligible morbidity. In addition, a modification of future site development augmentation, in preparation for secondary implant placement, is described, as are three cases, to demonstrate the impressive augmentation that can be achieved with osteotome sinus elevation.