Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and peri-implant soft tissue parameters between short and standard laser-microgrooved implants supporting single or splinted crowns 3 years after loading. Materials and Methods: 30 subjects received 1 short (≤ 7 mm) and 1 standard length (≥ 9 mm) laser-microgrooved implant in adjacent sites of the premolar and molar regions of the mandible or maxilla. Peri-implant soft tissue parameters and intraoral radiographs were recorded at the delivery of definitive crowns (baseline) and 3 years later. Cumulative survival rate (CSR) and marginal bone loss (MBL) in relation to crown/implant (C/I) ratio, implant length, location, type of antagonist, and type of prosthetic design (single or splinted), were evaluated. Results: CSR of short implants was 98%, compared to 100% for standard implants, without significant statistical difference. MBL was not significantly different over the observation period, with an average of 0.23 ± 0.6 mm and 0.27 ± 0.3 mm for short and standard implants, respectively. No statistical differences were found between short and standard implants regarding plaque (14.7% vs. 15.7%), number of sites BOP (8.3% vs. 5.9%), probing depth (1.13 ± 0.6 mm vs. 1.04 ± 0.8 mm), and mean mucosal recession (0.18 ± 0.3 mm vs. 0.22 ± 0.3 mm). Analyzing MBL in relation to the C/I ratio, implant length, location, type of antagonist, and type of prosthetic design, no statistically significant differences were found. Conclusion: Regardless of C/I ratio, implant length, location, type of antagonist, and type of prosthetic design, short and standard laser-microgrooved implants had similar survival rates, MBL, and peri-implant soft tissue conditions over the observation period of 3 years.

Short vs. standard laser-microgrooved implants supporting single and splinted crowns: a prospective study with 3 years follow-up

Testarelli, Luca
2019-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and peri-implant soft tissue parameters between short and standard laser-microgrooved implants supporting single or splinted crowns 3 years after loading. Materials and Methods: 30 subjects received 1 short (≤ 7 mm) and 1 standard length (≥ 9 mm) laser-microgrooved implant in adjacent sites of the premolar and molar regions of the mandible or maxilla. Peri-implant soft tissue parameters and intraoral radiographs were recorded at the delivery of definitive crowns (baseline) and 3 years later. Cumulative survival rate (CSR) and marginal bone loss (MBL) in relation to crown/implant (C/I) ratio, implant length, location, type of antagonist, and type of prosthetic design (single or splinted), were evaluated. Results: CSR of short implants was 98%, compared to 100% for standard implants, without significant statistical difference. MBL was not significantly different over the observation period, with an average of 0.23 ± 0.6 mm and 0.27 ± 0.3 mm for short and standard implants, respectively. No statistical differences were found between short and standard implants regarding plaque (14.7% vs. 15.7%), number of sites BOP (8.3% vs. 5.9%), probing depth (1.13 ± 0.6 mm vs. 1.04 ± 0.8 mm), and mean mucosal recession (0.18 ± 0.3 mm vs. 0.22 ± 0.3 mm). Analyzing MBL in relation to the C/I ratio, implant length, location, type of antagonist, and type of prosthetic design, no statistically significant differences were found. Conclusion: Regardless of C/I ratio, implant length, location, type of antagonist, and type of prosthetic design, short and standard laser-microgrooved implants had similar survival rates, MBL, and peri-implant soft tissue conditions over the observation period of 3 years.
2019
laser-microgrooved collar; marginal bone loss; short implants; survival rate; dentistry (all)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12610/93259
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 13
  • Scopus 35
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 29
social impact