We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Outcomes of 6.5-mm Hydrophilic Implants and Long Implants Placed with Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Comparison.
Clinical Implant Dentistry and related Research 2017 Februrary
BACKGROUND: Very few controlled studies have compared short and long implants placed with appropriate sinus floor elevation techniques.
PURPOSE: To compare the 2-year outcomes of 6.5-mm hydrophilic implants placed with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in patients with a severely atrophic posterior maxilla.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with a residual bone height of 4-5 mm were randomized to receive one of the two above-mentioned treatments. Intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. The implant survival rate, peri-implant bone level, and periapical endosinus bone gain were assessed.
RESULTS: Of the 80 inserted implants, one in the long implant group failed because of abscess formation. The peri-implant bone level change (0.35 ± 0.60 mm vs 0.40 ± 0.71 mm) was not significantly different between the two groups. The endosinus bone gain was 2.94 ± 0.81 mm and 10.19 ± 0.95 mm in the short and long implant groups, respectively. No serious adverse events related to implant surgery were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the placement of 6.5-mm short implants with OSFE is an effective alternative for the rehabilitation of a severely atrophic posterior maxilla.
PURPOSE: To compare the 2-year outcomes of 6.5-mm hydrophilic implants placed with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in patients with a severely atrophic posterior maxilla.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with a residual bone height of 4-5 mm were randomized to receive one of the two above-mentioned treatments. Intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. The implant survival rate, peri-implant bone level, and periapical endosinus bone gain were assessed.
RESULTS: Of the 80 inserted implants, one in the long implant group failed because of abscess formation. The peri-implant bone level change (0.35 ± 0.60 mm vs 0.40 ± 0.71 mm) was not significantly different between the two groups. The endosinus bone gain was 2.94 ± 0.81 mm and 10.19 ± 0.95 mm in the short and long implant groups, respectively. No serious adverse events related to implant surgery were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the placement of 6.5-mm short implants with OSFE is an effective alternative for the rehabilitation of a severely atrophic posterior maxilla.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app