Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial

Felix Gulje; Ingemar Abrahamsson; Stephen Chen; Clark Stanford; Homayoun Zadeh; Richard Palmer

doi:10.1111/clr.12001

Back

Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial

Felix Gulje, Ingemar Abrahamsson, Stephen Chen, Clark Stanford, Homayoun Zadeh and Richard Palmer

Clinical oral implants research, Vol.24(12), pp.1325-1331

12/01/2013

DOI: 10.1111/clr.12001

PMID: 22938573

Files and links (1)

url

https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12001View

Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

Background and aimIn cases with limited bone height, short implants could be a good alternative to augmentation procedures. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical performance of implants of 6mm or 11mm in length in the posterior region. Materials and methodsIn this multicenter trial (six study sites), 95 subjects were included. Subjects were randomly allocated to receiving implants with lengths of either 6 or 11mm both with a diameter of 4mm (OsseoSpeed 4.0 S; Astra Tech AB; Molndal, Sweden). In all cases, there had to be sufficient bone height to allow placement of an implant of at least 11mm in length. Two or three implants were placed per subject using one-stage surgery with a 42-48days' healing period before loading. They were restored with a screw-retained splinted fixed prosthesis. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed preoperatively, postsurgery, at loading, and 6 and 12months after prosthesis placement. ResultsA total of 208 implants were inserted in 49 subjects receiving 6-mm implants (test) and in 46 subjects receiving 11mm implants (control). Two 6-mm implants failed before loading and one 6 and 11mm implants failed before 1-year evaluation. From loading to the 12months' follow-up, a mean marginal bone gain of 0.06mm in the 6mm group and 0.02mm in the 11mm group was found (P=0.478). Soft tissue behavior was equal in both groups (Bleeding and plaque [P=1.0] probing depth [P=0.91]). ConclusionOne-year data indicate that treatment with the 6mm implants is as reliable as treatment with the 11mm implants. This provides a good treatment option in situations with limited bone height in the premolar and molar regions. Whether or not short implants provide a predictable treatment alternative to bone augmentation procedures remains to be investigated in the future randomized controlled clinical trials.

Engineering

Technology

Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine

Engineering, Biomedical

Life Sciences & Biomedicine

Science & Technology

Details

Title: Subtitle: Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial
Creators: Felix Gulje - Private practice de Mondhoek, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
Ingemar Abrahamsson - University of Gothenburg
Stephen Chen - The University of Melbourne
Clark Stanford - University of Iowa
Homayoun Zadeh - University of Southern California
Richard Palmer - King's College London
Resource Type: Journal article
Publication Details: Clinical oral implants research, Vol.24(12), pp.1325-1331
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12001
PMID: 22938573
NLM abbreviation: Clin Oral Implants Res
ISSN: 0905-7161
eISSN: 1600-0501
Publisher: Wiley
Number of pages: 7
Grant note: Astra Tech AB
Language: English
Date published: 12/01/2013
Academic Unit: Roy J. Carver Department of Biomedical Engineering; Dentistry Administration; Prosthodontics; Orthopedics and Rehabilitation; Craniofacial Anomalies Research Center
Record Identifier: 9984367639202771

Metrics

29 Record Views

91 Times Cited - Web of Science