4.2 Article

Single-crown restorations in premolar-molar regions: short (≤ 6.5) vs longer implants: retrospective cohort study

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-022-00438-y

Keywords

Dental implants; Short implants; Marginal bone loss; Crown-to-implant ratio

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to compare the survival, changes in marginal bone level, and prosthetic complications rate of short and longer implants supporting a single-crown restoration in the posterior maxilla/mandible. The results showed no significant differences between the two types of implants in terms of clinical outcomes.
Purpose To compare the survival, changes in marginal bone level and prosthetic complications rate of short (<= 6.5 mm) and longer implants (>= 7.5) supporting a single-crown restoration in the maxillary/mandibular premolar or molar region. Methods This cohort study was conducted following the STROBE statement recommendations for observational studies. Clinical outcomes of 88 short implants in 78 patients and 88 long implants in 88 patients were examined. All the implants had been placed by the same surgeon and restored following the same prosthetic concept; using a transepithelial abutment (intermediate abutment) and a screw retained restoration. Results All the implants were in function after the follow-up period since insertion (median: 31 months; range 11 to 84 for SiG vs median: 35 months; range: 6-117 for CG; p = 0.139). No statistical differences (p = 0.342) were observed related to prosthetic complications (screw loosening 2/88 vs 5/88 CG, ceramic chipping 1/88 vs 0/88, temporary crown resin chipping 1/88 vs 0/88 for SiG and CG, respectively) or related to marginal bone level (Mesial or Distal MBL >= 2 mm in 1/88 implants for SiG vs 3/88 for CG; p = 0.312). Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, no survival differences have been observed between short implants and longer implants in single-crown restorations in posterior maxilla/mandible.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available