Analysis of 8.5 mm Long Dental Implants Provided with Splinted or Solitary Implant Restorations: A 15-Year Prospective Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design, Participants and Setting
- Patients receiving one or two neighboring 8.5 mm long dental implants with a non-platform-switched design restoration (OsseoTite XP Certain, Biomet 3i, PalmBeach Gardens, FL, USA);
- Patients receiving one or two neighboring 8.5 mm long dental implants with a platform-switched design restoration (OsseoTite Certain Prevail, Biomet 3i, PalmBeach Gardens, FL, USA);
- Patients receiving one or two neighboring 8.5 mm long dental implants with a non-platform-switched design restoration (NanoTite XP Certain, Biomet 3i, PalmBeach Gardens, FL, USA);
- Patients receiving one or two neighboring 8.5 mm long dental implants with a platform-switched design restoration (NanoTite Certain Prevail, Biomet 3i, PalmBeach Gardens, FL, USA).
2.2. Outcomes and Parameters
2.3. Complications
- -
- The presence of bleeding and/or suppuration on gentle probing with or without increased probing depth compared to previous examinations.
- -
- The absence of bone loss beyond the crestal bone level changes resulting from initial bone remodeling.
- -
- The presence of bleeding and/or suppuration on gentle probing.
- -
- Increased probing depth compared to previous examinations.
- -
- The presence of bone loss beyond the crestal bone level changes resulting from initial bone remodeling.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Heitz-Mayfield, L.J.A.; Heitz, F.; Lang, N.P. Implant Disease Risk Assessment IDRA—A tool for preventing peri-implant disease. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2020, 31, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Telleman, G.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Vissink, A.; Hartog, L.D.; Slater, J.J.R.H.; Meijer, H.J.A. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10?mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2011, 38, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Thoma, D.S.; Haas, R.; Sporniak-Tutak, K.; Garcia, A.; Taylor, T.D.; Tutak, M.; Pohl, V.; Hämmerle, C.H.F. Randomized controlled multi-centre study comparing shorter dental implants (6 mm) to longer dental implants (11–15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 10-year data. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2024, 51, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monje, A.; Fu, J.; Chan, H.; Suarez, F.; Galindo-Moreno, P.; Catena, A.; Wang, H. Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospective studies. J. Periodontol. 2013, 84, 1783–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altaib, F.H.; Alqutaibi, A.Y.; Al-Fahd, A.; Eid, S. Short dental implant as alternative to long implant with bone augmentation of the atrophic posterior ridge: A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Quintessence Int. 2019, 50, 636–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lemos, C.A.A.; Ferro-Alves, M.L.; Okamoto, R.; Mendonça, M.R.; Pellizzer, E.P. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2016, 47, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Renvert, S.; Polyzois, I.; Claffey, N. How do implant surface characteristics influence peri-implant disease? J. Clin. Periodontol. 2011, 38, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yamano, S.; Al-Sowygh, Z.H.; Gallucci, G.O.; Wada, K.; Weber, H.-P.; Sukotjo, C. Early peri-implant tissue reactions on different titanium surface topographies. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 22, 815–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bruyn, H.; Christiaens, V.; Doornewaard, R.; Jacobsson, M.; Cosyn, J.; Jacquet, W.; Vervaeke, S. Implant surface roughness and patient factors on long-term peri-implant bone loss. Periodontol. 2000 2017, 73, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santiago, J.; Batista, V.d.S.; Verri, F.; Honório, H.; de Mello, C.; Almeida, D.; Pellizzer, E. Platform-switching implants and bone preservation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 45, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uraz, A.; Isler, S.C.; Cula, S.; Tunc, S.; Yalim, M.; Cetiner, D. Platform-switched implants vs platform-matched implants placed in different implant-abutment interface positions: A prospective randomized clinical and microbiological study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2020, 22, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katafuchi, M.; Weinstein, B.F.; Leroux, B.G.; Chen, Y.; Daubert, D.M. Restoration contour is a risk indicator for peri-implantitis: A cross-sectional radiographic analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018, 45, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yi, Y.; Koo, K.; Schwarz, F.; Ben Amara, H.; Heo, S. Association of prosthetic features and peri-implantitis: A cross-sectional study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2020, 47, 392–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, H.; Huang, J.; Ko, C.; Hsu, J.; Chang, C.; Chen, M.Y.C. Effects of splinted prosthesis supported a wide implant or two implants: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2005, 16, 466–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, T.; Leu, L.; Wang, J.; Lin, L. Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: A numeric analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2002, 17, 231–237. [Google Scholar]
- Guichet, D.L.; Yoshinobu, D.; Caputo, A.A. Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2002, 87, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nissan, J.; Gross, O.; Ghelfan, O.; Priel, I.; Gross, M.; Chaushu, G. The effect of splinting implant-supported restorations on stress distribution of different crown-implant ratios and crown height spaces. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011, 69, 2990–2994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guarnieri, R.; Di Nardo, D.; Gaimari, G.; Miccoli, G.; Testarelli, L. Short vs. Standard Laser-Microgrooved Implants Supporting Single and Splinted Crowns: A Prospective Study with 3 Years Follow-Up. J. Prosthodont. 2019, 28, E771–E779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Telleman, G.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Vissink, A.; Meijer, H.J.A. Impact of platform switching on inter-proximal bone levels around short implants in the posterior region; 1-year results from a randomized clinical trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2012, 39, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Telleman, G.; Meijer, H.J.A.; Vissink, A.; Raghoebar, G.M. Short implants with a nanometer-sized CaP surface provided with either a platform-switched or platform-matched abutment connection in the posterior region: A randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013, 24, 1316–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mombelli, A.; Van Oosten, M.A.C.; Schürch, E., Jr.; Lang, N.P. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol. Immunol. 1987, 2, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Löe, H.; Silness, J. Periodontal Disease in Pregnancy I. Prevalence and Severity. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1963, 21, 533–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berglundh, T.; Armitage, G.; Araujo, M.G.; Avila-Ortiz, G.; Blanco, J.; Camargo, P.M.; Chen, S.; Cochran, D.; Derks, J.; Figuero, E.; et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018, 45, S286–S291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schielzeth, H.; Dingemanse, N.J.; Nakagawa, S.; Westneat, D.F.; Allegue, H.; Teplitsky, C.; Réale, D.; Dochtermann, N.A.; Garamszegi, L.Z.; Araya-Ajoy, Y.G. Robustness of linear mixed-effects models to violations of distributional assumptions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2020, 11, 1141–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twisk, J.; De Boer, M.; De Vente, W.; Heymans, M. Multiple imputation of missing values was not necessary before performing a longitudinal mixed-model analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2013, 66, 1022–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Monje, A.; Chan, H.; Fu, J.; Suarez, F.; Galindo-Moreno, P.; Wang, H. Are short dental implants (<10 mm) effective? A meta-analysis on prospective clinical trials. J. Periodontol. 2013, 84, 895–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, H.; Si, M.; Zhuang, L.; Shen, H.; Liu, Y.; Wismeijer, D. Long-term outcomes of short dental implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: A clinical retrospective study of 5–10 years. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013, 24, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taheri, M.; Akbari, S.; Shamshiri, A.R.; Shayesteh, Y.S. Marginal bone loss around bone-level and tissue-level implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Anat.–Anat. Anz. 2020, 231, 151525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arai, Y.; Takashima, M.; Matsuzaki, N.; Takada, S. Marginal bone loss in dental implants: A literature review of risk factors and treatment strategies for prevention. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2024; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz, P.; Gonzalo, E.; Gil Villagra, L.J.; Miegimolle, B.; Suarez, M.J. What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derks, J.; Tomasi, C. Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2015, 42, S158–S171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvi, G.E.; Monje, A.; Tomasi, C. Long-term biological complications of dental implants placed either in pristine or in augmented sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 294–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grossmann, Y.; Finger, I.M.; Block, M.S. Indications for splinting implant restorations. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005, 63, 1642–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Esposito, M.; Gatti, F.; Meloni, M.; Muzzi, L.; Baldini, N.; Buti, J.; Minciarelli, A.; Xhanari, E.; Tallarico, M. To splint or not to splint short dental implants under the same partial fixed prosthesis: Five year results from a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Clin. Trials Dent. 2023, 5, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics | |
---|---|
Number of patients | 122 |
Mean age at implant placement (SD, years) | 49.1 (12.0) |
Female/male | 94/28 |
Number of implants | 223 |
Implant position maxilla (P1/P2/M1/M2) | 12/33/52/8 |
Implant position mandible (P1/P2/M1/M2) | 3/41/61/13 |
Number of solitary implants | 89 |
Number of splinted implants | 134 |
Implant diameter 4.1 mm (n implants) | 158 |
Implant diameter 5.0 mm (n implants) | 65 |
Surface characteristics (OsseoTite/NanoTite) | 89/134 |
Number of restorations with platform switching (yes/no) | 114/109 |
T5 | T12 | T60 | T180 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Plaque index score 0; no detection of plaque | 89.2 | 73.7 | 71.2 | 98.0 |
Plaque index score 1; plaque on probe | 10.8 | 22.2 | 23.7 | 0.7 |
Plaque index score 2; plaque seen by naked eye | 0 | 4.1 | 5.1 | 1.3 |
Plaque score 3; abundance of soft matter | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Bleeding index score 0; no bleeding | 60.0 | 60.1 | 50.3 | 78.4 |
Bleeding index score 1; isolated bleeding spots | 38.9 | 37.4 | 41.8 | 14.2 |
Bleeding index score 2; confluent line of blood | 1.1 | 2.5 | 7.9 | 7.4 |
Bleeding index score 3; heavy or profuse bleeding | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |
Gingival index score 0; normal mucosa | 91.6 | 94.4 | 86.4 | 94.6 |
Gingival index score 1; mild inflammation | 8.4 | 5.6 | 13.6 | 5.4 |
Gingival index score 2; moderate inflammation | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Gingival index score 3; severe inflammation | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Mean deepest pocket depth | 3.4 (1.2) | 3.2 (1.1) | 3.6 (1.3) | 2.8 (1.0) |
Bone Change (mm) | T12 | T60 | T180 |
---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | 1.2 (0.8) | 1.1 (0.9) | 1.4 (1.2) |
>−2.0 mm (n implants (% implants)) | 37 (18.8) | 34 (19.2) | 40 (26.7) |
−1.5 to −2.0 mm (n implants (% implants)) | 36 (18.3) | 26 (14.7) | 16 (10.7) |
−1.0 to −1.5 mm (n implants (% implants)) | 40 (20.3) | 23 (13.0) | 26 (17.3) |
−0.5 to −1.0 mm (n implants (% implants)) | 38 (19.2) | 38 (21.5) | 34 (22.7) |
0.0 to −0.5 mm (n implants (% implants)) | 46 (23.4) | 56 (31.6) | 34 (22.7) |
Predictors | Peri-Implant Mucositis | Peri-Implantitis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Odds Ratios (95% CI) | p | Odds Ratios (95% CI) | p | |
Implant type (ref: OsseoTite XP Certain) | ||||
OsseoTite Certain Prevail | 2.14 (0.00–1794.65) | 0.825 | 0.62 (0.00–73,429.32) | 0.935 |
NanoTite XP Certain | 1.45 (0.00–1687.10) | 0.918 | 0.00 (0.000–Inf) | 0.990 |
NanoTite Certain Prevail | 0.59 (0.00–1660.80) | 0.896 | 0.63 (0.00–102,412.96) | 0.940 |
Implant diameter (ref: 4.1 mm) | ||||
5.0 mm | 0.74 (0.00–232.75) | 0.920 | 5.66 (0.00–261,784.25) | 0.752 |
Splinted (ref: no) | ||||
Yes | 0.67 (0.00–139.71) | 0.884 | 3.60 (0.00–517,583.95) | 0.833 |
Predictors | Bone Loss | Plaque Index | Bleeding Index | Gingiva Index | Peri-Implant Pocket Depth | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β (95% CI) | p | β (95% CI) | p | β (95% CI) | p | β (95% CI) | p | β (95% CI) | p | |
Implant type (ref: OsseoTite XP Certain) | ||||||||||
OsseoTite Certain Prevail | −0.37 (−0.69 to −0.05) | 0.024 | 0.12 (−0.00 to 0.25) | 0.056 | 0.00 (−0.16 to 0.16) | 0.999 | 0.05 (−0.03 to 0.12) | 0.221 | 0.12 (−0.22 to 0.47) | 0.484 |
NanoTite XP Certain | −0.10 (−0.44 to 0.25) | 0.580 | 0.06 (−0.08 to 0.19) | 0.405 | 0.16 (−0.33 to 0.00) | 0.049 | 0.01 (−0.07 to 0.09) | 0.855 | 0.02 (−0.36 to 0.40) | 0.916 |
NanoTite Certain Prevail | −0.47 (−0.80 to −0.14) | 0.006 | 0.11 (−0.02 to 0.24) | 0.083 | 0.13 (−0.28 to 0.03) | 0.114 | 0.01 (−0.07 to 0.08) | 0.886 | −0.09 (−0.46 to 0.28) | 0.628 |
Implant diameter (ref: 4.1 mm) | ||||||||||
5.0 mm | −0.19 (−0.43 to 0.06) | 0.130 | −0.03 (−0.13 to 0.06) | 0.510 | 0.00 (−0.12 to 0.12) | 0.978 | −0.02 (−0.08 to 0.04) | 0.451 | 0.26 (0.00 to 0.53) | 0.051 |
Splinted (ref: no) | ||||||||||
Yes | 0.39 (0.15 to 0.63) | 0.002 | 0.06 (−0.04 to 0.15) | 0.248 | 0.08 (0.04 to 0.19) | 0.201 | 0.05 (−0.01 to 0.10) | 0.103 | −0.17 (−0.43 to 0.10) | 0.229 |
Tpre% in Agreement | T5% in Agreement | T60% in Agreement | T180% in Agreement | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Feelings | ||||
Presence of shame | 36.1 | 2.6 * | 1.0 * | 1.3 * |
Self-confidence decreased | 1.7 | 2.6 * | 1.0 * | 1.3 * |
Visible being partially edentulous | 50.4 | 0.9 * | 1.9 * | 1.3 * |
Function | ||||
Evade eating with the edentulous zone/implant | 62.2 | 0.9 * | 2.9 * | 1.3 * |
The ability to chew is decreased | 62.7 | 7.0 * | 8.7 * | 1.3 * |
Implant does influence the speech | - | 7.0 | 4.9 | 1.3 |
Implant does influence the taste | 2.6 | 1.0 | 1.3 | |
Esthetics | ||||
Not satisfied with the color of the crown | - | 5.4 | 5.8 | 0.0 |
Not satisfied with the contour of the crown | - | 7.0 | 1.9 | 2.6 |
Not satisfied with the color of the mucosa around the crown | - | 6.5 | 2.9 | 1.3 |
Not satisfied with the contour of the mucosa around the crown | - | 11.8 | 14.6 | 5.1 |
Overall satisfaction (0–10, P25 to P75) | 5.2 (4.0 to 6.5) | 9.0 (8.0 to 10.0) * | 9.0 (8.0 to 10.0) * | 9.0 (9.0 to 10.0) * |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hakkers, J.; Telleman, G.; de Waal, Y.C.M.; Gareb, B.; Vissink, A.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Meijer, H.J.A. Analysis of 8.5 mm Long Dental Implants Provided with Splinted or Solitary Implant Restorations: A 15-Year Prospective Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 5162. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175162
Hakkers J, Telleman G, de Waal YCM, Gareb B, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJA. Analysis of 8.5 mm Long Dental Implants Provided with Splinted or Solitary Implant Restorations: A 15-Year Prospective Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(17):5162. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175162
Chicago/Turabian StyleHakkers, Jarno, Gerdien Telleman, Yvonne C. M. de Waal, Barzi Gareb, Arjan Vissink, Gerry M. Raghoebar, and Henny J. A. Meijer. 2024. "Analysis of 8.5 mm Long Dental Implants Provided with Splinted or Solitary Implant Restorations: A 15-Year Prospective Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 17: 5162. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175162