Immediate rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae using conventional and extended length subcrestal angulated (ELSA) implants: A retrospective analysis of 187 implants in 33 patients with up to three years of function.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and determine clinical outcomes and survival rates of straight and extended length subcrestal angulated (ELSA) implants (20-24 mm lengths) placed for immediate (up to 72 h post-operative) or delayed rehabilitation (4 months post-operative) of severely atrophic maxillae. Prosthetic treatment consisted of interim and definitive implant-supported fixed implant-supported prostheses with up to 3 years of function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 38 patients (five dropped out; final total was 33), treated between 2017 and 2019 in a private practice. Extended length subcrestal angulated (ELSA) implants and conventional endosseous straight implants (Southern Implants, Irene, South Africa) with (fixed) full arch prostheses were used to restore patients with edentulous maxillae immediately (within 72 hs) or delayed (4 months).  ELSA implants have subcrestal angulations of 24° and 36° of the restorative platforms, external hexagon crestal anti-rotation abutment connections, and lengths between 18 and 26 mm. Implant loading was determined by implant insertion torque values (as determined on the surgical units); 120 Ncm was the threshold level for immediate loading. Clinical and radiographic examinations were done that recorded the clinical outcomes of implants and prostheses. SPSS was used to process the data.

RESULTS: Thirty-three patients and 187 implants were included with follow-up periods of at least 12 months (range 12-36 months). The mean age of the study population was 62.6 ± 8.4 years old (at the time of implant placement). Thirty-three patients (86.8%) were followed for 12 months; 13 patients (39.4%) were followed for 24-35 months; 9 patients (27.3%) were followed for 36 months. In total, 13 implants in six patients failed secondary to sinus infections. Mean bone levels (MBLs) were respectively: 0.88 ± 2.12 mm at loading, -1.53 ± 2.03 mm at 12 months, -2.26 ± 1.45 mm at 24 months, and -2.54 ± 1.46 mm at 36 months. The ELSA implants showed significantly lower (p = 0.014) MBL at 36 months than did the conventional implants. One hundred thirty-seven implants were placed and loaded within 72 h; 50 implants were placed and loaded 4 months post placement. The combined implant survival rates were 93.0% at 12 months, 91.1% at 24 months, and 100% at 36 months. The ELSA implants showed significantly lower (p = 0.014) MBLs at 36 months when compared to the conventional implants.

CONCLUSIONS: The results of this retrospective clinical chart review indicated that the use of ELSA implants placed into anterior maxillae and nasal crests with accentuated distal tilts (>30°) and simultaneous sinus augmentation provided favorable outcomes for prosthetic rehabilitation in patients with severe atrophic maxillae. ELSA implants placed with simultaneous sinus augmentation are an alternative option to zygomatic implants (ZI) when immediate loading is prescribed. Sinus infections were thought to be the proximate causes of all implant failures. Further long-term clinical studies are warranted with larger patient populations.