 |
JOURNAL TOOLS |
| Publishing options |
| eTOC |
| To subscribe |
| Submit an article |
| Recommend to your librarian |
ARTICLE TOOLS |
| Publication history |
| Reprints |
| Permissions |
| Cite this article as |
| Share |
YOUR ACCOUNT
YOUR ORDERS
SHOPPING BASKET
Items: 0
Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS
YOUR ARTICLES
YOUR EBOOKS
COUPON
ACCESSIBILITY
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 February;71(1):10-5
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.21.04533-2
Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
language: English
Retrospective evaluation about morse taper versus external hexagon implants placed after maxillary sinus lift
Luiz A. BARROS-FILHO 1, Guilherme J. DE OLIVEIRA 2, Luiz A. BARROS 1, Elcio MARCANTONIO Jr 1 ✉
1 Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Araraquara, Brazil; 2 School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology/Implantology, Federal University of Uberlândia (UFU), Uberlândia, Brazil
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the success and survival rate of implants with different types of prosthetic connections inserted in the posterior maxilla in native bone or in sinuses previously grafted with different biomaterials.
METHODS: A total of 310 implants inserted in 113 patients were evaluated, 87 of which were inserted in association with grafted maxillary sinuses (56 morse taper (MT) implants and 31 external hexagon (EH) implants) in 37 patients, and 223 implants were inserted in native bone areas (112 MT and 111 EH implants) in 76 patients. Peri-implant clinical analyses were performed (bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical insertion level, peri-implant marginal level, and the presence of mobility or suppuration), and the radiographic bone level was evaluated.
RESULTS: Two implants were lost, yielding a survival rate of 99.35%. The MT implants had lower probing depths and peri-implant bone levels than the EH implants in both grafted areas and native bone areas (P<0.05). No statistically significant differences in any parameter evaluated were found between implants inserted in native bone and those inserted in grafting areas. EH implants inserted in native bone areas showed higher peri-implantitis rates.
CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the MT implants connection reduce peri-implant bone loss, but implants inserted in maxillary sinuses previously grafted with osteoconductive biomaterials do not predispose patients to peri-implant bone loss.
KEY WORDS: Bone transplantation; Maxillary sinus; Osseointegration