Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11–15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 5‐Year data

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology 2018-12, Vol.45 (12), p.1465-1474
• Main Authors: Thoma, Daniel S., Haas, Robert, Sporniak‐Tutak, Katarzyna, Garcia, Abel, Taylor, Thomas D., Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss; bone augmentation; Bone grafts; Bone implants; Crowns; Dental crowns; dental implant; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental prosthetics; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental restorative materials; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Maxilla; Mechanical loading; multicentre; OHIP; OHIP‐49; patient satisfaction; Patients; quality of life; randomized controlled clinical trial; short dental implant; Sinus Floor Augmentation; sinus floor elevation; sinus grafting; Statistical analysis; Survival; Transplants & implants; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13025

Aim To compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants and standard length implants placed in combination with bone grafting at 5 years of loading. Methods This multicentre study enrolled 101 patients (137 implants) with a posterior maxillary bone height of 5–7 mm. Patients randomly received either short implants (6 mm; GS) or long implants (11–15 mm) with sinus grafting (GG). Six months later, implants were loaded with single crowns and patients re‐examined at 1, 3 and 5 years of loading. Outcomes included: implant survival, marginal bone levels (MBLs), biological and technical parameters and patient‐reported outcome measures (OHIP‐49 = Oral Health Impact Profile). Statistical analysis was performed using a non‐parametric approach. Results At 5 years, 90 patients (124 implants; GS: 60; GG: 64) were re‐examined (drop‐out rate 10%). Patient‐level implant survival rates were 98.5% (GS; 1 implant failure) and 100% (GG; p = 0.49). Mean MBLs were 0.54 mm ± 0.87 (GS) and 0.46 mm ± 1.00 (GG; p = 0.34). Biological and technical parameters were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Median overall OHIP‐49 scores improved significantly up to 5 years in both groups (GS: p = 0.03; GG: p = 0.00; intergroup comparison p = 0.11). Conclusions Both treatment modalities were suitable for implant therapy in the atrophied posterior maxilla revealing no differences in terms of survival rates, marginal bone levels (changes), patient‐reported outcomes and technical/biological complications.