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

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.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

57 since deposited on 09 Sep 2021
39 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item