Clinical, radiographic and economic evaluation of short‐6‐mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in moderately atrophic maxillae: A 3‐year randomized clinical trial

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

To compare the 3‐year clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes of short‐6‐mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) in the posterior maxilla.
This study enrolled 225 patients (225 implants with diameter of 4.1 mm and 4.8 mm) with a posterior maxillary residual bone height (RBH) of 6–8 mm. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 (6 mm implants alone), Group 2 (8 mm implants + OSFE) and Group 3 (10 mm implants + OSFE). The following outcomes were recorded at 1 and 3‐year examinations: implant survival, probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and technical complications, complication‐free survival and treatment costs.
At the 3‐year follow‐up, 199 patients (Group 1: 67; Group 2: 62; Group 3: 70) were re‐examined. Implant survival rates were 91.80%, 97.08% and 100.00% in groups 1, 2 and 3. Implant survival rate in Group 1 was significantly lower than that in Group 3 (p = 0.029). A multivariate Cox model showed that the short‐6‐mm implants with wide diameter had a protective effect on implant survival (hazard ratio: 0.59, p = 0.001). No significant differences in BOP%, PPD, mPI, MBL and complication‐free survival rate were found among the three groups. The average costs of retreatment were 8.31%, 1.96% and 0.56% of the total costs in groups 1, 2 and 3. The cost to avoid a 1% increase in implant loss associated with 6‐mm implants over a 3‐year period was 369 CNY (56 USD) using a 10‐mm implant with OSFE and 484 CNY (74 USD) using an 8‐mm implant with OSFE.
In the moderately atrophic posterior maxillae, the three treatments showed acceptable clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes with up to 3‐year follow‐up. 10‐mm implants combined with OSFE showed more favourable implant survival and fewer maintenance costs in comparison with short‐6‐mm implants, which were less expensive.