We have located links that may give you full text access.
Short vs. Standard Laser-Microgrooved Implants Supporting Single and Splinted Crowns: A Prospective Study with 3 Years Follow-Up.
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists 2018 August 32
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.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
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