Short vs standard implants associated with sinus floor elevation: a randomized controlled trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5335/rfo.v26i1.12327Keywords:
marginal bone loss, survival, short Implants, sinus floor elevationAbstract
Objective: the present equivalence two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial aimed to compare survival
and marginal bone loss (MBL) of short implants (≤6 mm) and standard implants (≥8.5 mm) associated with
sinus floor elevation (SFE). Methods: adult patients with partial edentulism with occlusal stability in the sinus
area and intermediate bone height were selected in this double-blind trial (patient and outcome assessment).
Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: standard length implants with SFE (control) or short implants
(test). Clinical and radiographic assessments were made at the time of implant placement, 6 months, and
annually thereafter up to 2 years after loading. The inter-examiner agreement was analyzed using intraclass
correlation coefficient (ICC). One-way ANOVA, Kaplan-Meier, and Log-rank tests were used to compare
implant survival (primary outcome) and MBL (secondary outcome) (P<0.05). Results: eight short implants and
six standard implants were placed (mean age of patients was 47 ±12.5 years). The implant survival rates were
87.5% for short (one 5 mm implant failed at 7 months) and 100% for standard implants with no statistically
significant difference between groups (P=0.4). The mean MBL after 1 year was 0.30 ±0.62 mm for short and
0.21 ±0.36 mm for standard implants (P=0.123). The inter-examiner agreement was set in 0.831. Conclusion:
survival of short implants and standard implants associated with SFE was similar after two years of clinical
service. Trial registration: Registered on 27-03-2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03479333). Funding: This
study was partially funded by Capes Finance Code 001 and #88881.187933/2018-01. TPC is partially funded
by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq - Brazil). The funders had no role
in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Keywords: bone resorption; dental implants; sinus floor augmentation; survival.
Downloads
References
replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the
maxillary sinus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
2014; 13(5):CD008397. https://doi: 10.1002/14651858.
CD008397.pub2.
2. Danesh-Sani SA, Loomer PM, Wallace SS. A comprehensive
clinical review of maxillary sinus floor elevation: anatomy,
techniques, biomaterials and complications. Br J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54(7):724-30. https://doi: 10.1016/j.
bjoms.2016.05.008.
3. Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hüsler J, Hämmerle CHF, Jung
RE. EAO Supplement Working Group 4 – EAO CC 2015
Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants
to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin
Oral Implants Res 2015; 26(11):154-69. https://doi: 10.1111/
clr.12615.
4. Jung RE, Al-Nawas B, Araujo M, Avila-Ortiz G, Barter
S, Brodala N, et al. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The
influence of implant length and design and medications on
clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clin Oral Implants
Res 2018; 29(16):69-77.
5. Gulje FL, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Single
crowns in the resorbed posterior maxilla supported by either
6-mm implants or by 11-mm implants combined with sinus
floor elevation surgery: a 1-year randomized controlled trial.
Eur J Oral Implantol 2014; 7(3):247-55.
6. Esposito M, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Sammartino G, Grandi
G, Felice P. Short implants versus bone augmentation for
placing longer implants in atrophic maxillae: One-year postloading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J
Oral Implantol 2015; 8(3):257-68.
7. Yan Q, Wu X, Su M, Hua F, Shi B. Short implants (≤6 mm)
versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic
posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMJ Open 2019; 9(10):e029826. https://doi: 10.1136/
bmjopen-2019-029826.
8. Bitaraf T, Keshtkar A, Rokn AR, Monzavi A, Geramy A,
Hashemi K. Comparing short dental implant and standard
dental implant in terms of marginal bone level changes:
a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;
21(4):796-812. https://doi: 10.1111/cid.12774.
9. Vetromilla BM, Mazzetti T, Pereira-Cenci T. Short versus
standard implants associated with sinus floor elevation: an
umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple outcomes. J
Prosthet Dent 2021; 126(4):503-11.
10. Meijer HJA, Boven C, Delli K, Raghoebar GM. Is there
an effect of crown-to-implant ratio on implant treatment
outcomes? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res
2018; 29(18):243-52. https://doi: 10.1111/clr.13338.
11. Malchiodi L, Cucchi A, Ghensi P, Consonni D, Nocini PF.
Influence of crown-implant ratio on implant success rates
and crestal bone levels: a 36-month follow-up prospective
study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25(2):240-51. https://doi:
10.1111/clr.12105.
12. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group.
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting
parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2011; 9(8):672-
77. https://doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.004.
13. Carrillo de Albornoz A, Vignoletti F, Ferrantino L, Cardenas
E, De Sanctis M, Sanz M. A randomized trial on the aesthetic
outcomes of implant-supported restorations with zirconia or
titanium abutments. J Clin Periodontol 2014; 41(12):1161-9.
https://doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12312.
14. Felice P, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Bruno V, Trullenque-Eriksson
A, Esposito M. Short implants as an alternative to crestal
sinus lift: A 1-year multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Eur J Oral Implantol 2015; 8(4):375-84.
15. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria. 2019. https://www.R-project.org/.
16. Gamer M, Lemon J, Singh IFP. irr: Various Coefficients of
Interrater Reliability and Agreement. R package version
0.84.1. 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr.
17. Parchami A. ANOVA.TFNs: One-Way Analysis of Variance
Based on Triangular Fuzzy Numbers. R package version 1.0.
2018. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ANOVA.TFNs.
18. Therneau T. A Package for Survival Analysis in S. version
2.38. 2015. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival.
19. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The
long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a
review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants 1986; 1(1):11-25.
20. Annibali S, Cristalli MP, Dell’Aquila D, Bignozzi I, La
Monaca G, Pilloni A. Short dental implants: a systematic
review. J Dent Res 2012; 91(1):25-32. https://doi:
10.1177/0022034511425675
1. Nielsen HB, Schou S, Isidor F, Christensen A-E, StarchJensen T. Short implants (≤8 mm) compared to standard
length implants (>8 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus
floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 48(2):239-49. https://doi:
10.1016/j.ijom.2018.05.010.
22. Ravidà A, Wang IC, Sammartino G, Barootchi S, Tattan M,
Troiano G, et al. Prosthetic Rehabilitation of the Posterior
Atrophic Maxilla, Short (≤6 mm) or Long (≥10 mm) Dental
Implants? A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial
Sequential Analysis: Naples Consensus Report Working
Group A. Implant Dent 2019; 28(6):590-602. https://doi:
10.1097/ID.0000000000000919.
23. Fan T, Li Y, Deng WW, Wu T, Zhang W. Short Implants (5 to
8 mm) Versus Longer Implants (>8 mm) with Sinus Lifting
in Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: a Meta-Analysis of RCTs.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19(1):207-15. https://doi:
10.1111/cid.12432.
24. Bechara S, Kubilius R, Veronesi G, Pires JT, Shibli JA,
Mangano FG. Short (6-mm) dental implants versus sinus
floor elevation and placement of longer (≥10-mm) dental
implants: a randomized controlled trial with a 3-year followup. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28(9):1097-107. https://doi:
10.1111/clr.12923.
25. Pohl V, Thoma DS, Sporniak-Tutak K, Garcia-Garcia A,
Taylor TD, Haas R, et al. Short dental implants (6 mm) versus
long dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus
floor elevation procedures: 3-year results from a multicentre,
randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2017;
44(4):438-45. https://doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12694.
26. Goiato MC, dos Santos DM, Santiago JF Jr, Moreno A,
Pellizzer EP. Longevity of dental implants in type IV bone:
a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;
43(9):1108-16. https://doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.016.
27. Srinivasan M, Vazquez L, Rieder P, Moraguez O, Bernard
JP, Belser UC. Survival rates of short (6 mm) micro-rough
surface implants: a review of literature and meta-analysis.
Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25(5):539-45. https://doi:
10.1111/clr.12125
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.
