Short implants versus bone augmentation in atrophic maxillae: Five‐year post‐loading results from a RCT
Roberta Gasparro,Carlo Barausse,Roberto Pistilli,Gilberto Sammartino,Pietro Felice
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.382_13509
2019-09-01
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Abstract:BackgroundThe rehabilitation of fully edentulous atrophic maxillae can be challenging. The missing dentition can be replaced by dentures, which may not always be appreciated by patients for their instability, discomfort and negative psychological impact. The ideal solution would be an implant‐supported prosthesis, however the lack of adequate bone volumes to place at least four dental implants of sufficient length due to advanced bone resorption could be a problem.Aim/HypothesisTo evaluate whether short (5–8.5 mm) dental implants could be a suitable alternative to longer (at least 11.5 mm‐long) implants placed in atrophic fully edentulous maxillae augmented with autogenous bone for supporting dental prostheses.Material and MethodsTwenty‐eight patients with fully edentulous atrophic maxillae having 5–9 mm of residual crestal bone height at least 5 mm thick, as measured on CT scans, were randomised into two groups either to receive four to eight short (5–8.5 mm) implants (15 patients) or autogenous bone from the iliac crest to allow the placement of at least 11.5 mm‐long implants (13 patients). Both bone blocks and windows at lifted maxillary sinuses were covered with rigid resorbable barriers. Grafts were left to heal for 4 months before placing implants, which were submerged. After 4 months, provisional reinforced acrylic prostheses or bar retained overdentures were delivered. Provisional prostheses were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive screw‐retained metal‐resin cross‐arch restorations. Outcome measures were‐ augmentation, prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, peri‐implant marginal bone level changes and patient satisfaction. Patients were followed up to 5 years after loading.ResultsAll patients could be rehabilitated with implant‐supported prostheses but four patients dropped‐out from the augmented group and three from the short implant group. One bilateral sinus lift procedure failed for infection, though short implants could be placed. Four implants failed in four patients of the augmented group versus three short implants in three patients (Fishers exact test, P = 0.6500). All failures occurred before loading. No prosthesis failed. Significantly more complications occurred in augmented patients‐ 12 complications occurred in nine augmented patients versus one complication in the short implant group (Fishers exact test, P = 0.0003). Periapical radiographs of only four patients were available, so no bone level could be measured at 5 years after loading. With the only exception of three patients of the augmented group who were partially satisfied for function, all remaining patients were fully satisfied and all would do the treatment again. Conclusion and Clinical ImplicationsThis study showed that for patients with fully edentulous atrophic maxillae short implants can be a preferable alternative to longer implants placed in bone augmented with autogenous bone, being the treatment less invasive, associated with less complications, cheaper and faster.
engineering, biomedical,dentistry, oral surgery & medicine