Long-term effectiveness of 6 mm micro-rough implants in various indications: A 4.6- to 18.2-year retrospective study.

Raabe, Clemens; Monje, Alberto; Abou-Ayash, Samir; Buser, Daniel Albin; von Arx, Thomas; Chappuis, Vivianne (2021). Long-term effectiveness of 6 mm micro-rough implants in various indications: A 4.6- to 18.2-year retrospective study. Clinical oral implants research, 32(8), pp. 1008-1018. Wiley-Blackwell 10.1111/clr.13795

[img]
Preview
Text
Raabe_Long-term_short_implants_2021.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND).

Download (1MB) | Preview

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of 6 mm implants in various indications with a micro-rough surface after 4.6-18.2 years in function and to assess key factors associated with implant survival, success, and biologic/technical complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-five patients with seventy-four 6 mm implants placed from 2000 to 2013 attended the re-examination assessing well-established clinical and radiographic parameters, biologic and prosthetic complications, and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

Five implants were lost after a mean follow-up period of 9.1 years resulting in a survival rate of 93.2%. All losses occurred in free-end situations in the mandible. Smoking habit significantly reduced implant survival (hazard ratio 36.25). Two implants exhibited a history of peri-implantitis, and one implant showed progressive marginal bone loss (MBL) resulting in a success rate of 89.2%. The mean MBL amounted to 0.029 mm. Increased MBL was found for implants placed in the maxilla (0.057 mm) and for implants with a diameter of 4.1 mm (0.043 mm). Soft tissue thickness (1.39 mm) and width of keratinized mucosa (1.91 mm) had no effect on MBL. Patient-reported outcome measures showed high satisfaction (mean VAS scores 88%) and high quality of life (mean OHIP-G14 score 2.2).

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated survival and success rates of 93.2% and 89.2% for 6 mm implants used in various indications. A factor leading to higher implant failure was smoking, whereas modulating factors increasing annual MBL included implants placed in the maxilla and implants with a diameter of 4.1 mm compared to 4.8 mm.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology
04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology

UniBE Contributor:

Raabe, Clemens; Abou-Ayash, Samir; Buser, Daniel Albin; von Arx, Thomas and Chappuis, Vivianne

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0905-7161

Publisher:

Wiley-Blackwell

Language:

English

Submitter:

Melanie Speiser

Date Deposited:

09 Sep 2021 15:14

Last Modified:

09 Sep 2021 15:14

Publisher DOI:

10.1111/clr.13795

PubMed ID:

34129707

Uncontrolled Keywords:

alveolar bone loss clinical trial dental Implants osseointegration patient reported outcome measures

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/158368

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/158368

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback