Home > Journals > Minerva Dental and Oral Science > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2021 Jun 15

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

 

Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2021 Jun 15

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, Univ. Est. Paul. - UNESP, Araraquara, Brazil; 2 Department of Periodontology/Implantology, Dental School, Federal University of Uberlândia - UFU, Uberlândia, Brazil


PDF


BACKGROUND: The objective 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 periimplantitis rates.
CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the MT implants connection reduce periimplant 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 graft; Maxillary sinus; Osseointegration

top of page