https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33917587/

Rossi F, Tuci L, Ferraioli L, Ricci E, Suerica A, Botticelli D, Pellegrino G, Felice P. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 6;18(7):3846.

The aim of the study was to compare the performance of short implants used as distal support of maxillary full-arch fixed dental prostheses with standard implants placed in association with bilateral sinus floor augmentation.

Methods: Prostheses supported by six implants were placed in the upper jaw. Patients were divided into two groups: In the test group, the distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was 4 mm long while the remaining implants had standard length (10 mm). No sinus floor elevations were performed. In the control group, only standard implants were used and the distal implants were placed four months after lateral sinus lift using cerabone® and collprotect® membrane to cover the sinus window. Implant survival, marginal bone level changes and patient-reported outcome measures up to 24 months post-operative were assessed.

Results:
– No implant in the distal region of the prostheses was lost
– Bone level changes for the short implants: −0.01 ± 0.11 mm, −0.04 ± 0.13 mm, −0.17 ± 0.29 mm, and −0.28 ± 0.37 mm after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from prosthesis delivering, respectively
– Bone level changes for the control implants: −0.21 ± 0.33 mm, −0.30 ± 0.32 mm, −0.40 ± 0.37 mm and −0.54 ± 0.49 mm, respectively
– Statistically significant difference between the groups was found only at 12 months after loading (p = 0.023)
– Patient-centered outcomes showed a general satisfaction of the patients in both groups with higher scores in the test group

Conclusion: Both treatment modalities resulted in similar outcomes concerning implant survival and marginal bone loss with a statistically relevant difference only at 12 months after loading.

Fabio Rossi