# 5 mm Short Implants Versus Bone Augmentation.

Four-month Post-loading Results From A Randomized

Controlled Clinical Trial.
L. Piana *, R. Pistilli**, P. Felice* , L. Checchi*, A. Scarano***, M. Esposito****
laurapiana84@gmail.comr_pistilli@libero.itpietro.felice@unibo.itluigi.checchi@unibo.it ascarano@unich.itespositomarco@hotmail.com

*School of Dentistry, Unit of Periodontology&Implantology, University of Bologna, Italy

** Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, A.C.O. San Filippo Neri, Roma, Italy
*** Dental School, University of Chieti-Pescara,Chieti, Italy
**** School of Dentistry, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Manchester, UK

Objectives: to evaluate whether 5 mm short implants could be a suitable alternative to augmentation and placement of longer implants in posterior
atrophic jaws
Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with bilateral posterior edentulism
were included: 15 patients having 5-7 mm of residual crestal height above the
mandibular canal and 15 patients having 4-6 mm of residual crestal height
below the maxillary sinus were randomized either to receive 5 mm or 10 mm
long Rescue implants (Megagen) placed in augmented bone according to a
split-mouth design.
Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, complications, time
needed to fully recover mental nerve function and patient treatment
preference.

Test side in posterior maxillary

Control side in posterior maxillary

Test side in posterior mandible

Control side in posterior mandible

Results
In 5 patients of the augmented group there was not enough bone(height) to place 10 mm implants and therefore 7 and 8.5 mm were used.
In each group one prosthesis could not be placed because an implant was found mobile at abutment connection.
Five complications occurred: 2 in the augmented group versus 3 in the 5 mm implant group. No patient suffered from permanent disruption
of alveolar inferior nerve function; however sensitivity was recovered significantly faster in the short implant side. There was no statistically
significant difference in patient preference for treatment.

Conclusions: With residual bone height of 5-7 mm over the mandibular canal, 5 mm short implants might be preferable since the treatment is faster,
cheaper and associated with less morbidity. In the presence of 4-6 mm of bone height below the maxillary sinus it is still unclear which procedure could
be preferable.

References:- Felice P, Marchetti C, Iezzi G, Piattelli A, Pellegrino G, Esposito M. Vertical augmentation of the posterior mandible with inlay grafts: bone from the iliac crest versus bovine bone. Results up to 1 year after loading from a
randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2009;In press
- Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Checchi V, Marchetti C, Pellegrino G, Censi P, Esposito M. Vertical bone augmentation versus 7-mm-long implants in posterior atrophic mandibles. Results of a randomised controlled clinical trial of up to 4 month
safterloading. Eur.J Oral Implantol. 2009; 2(1):7-20.
- Pietro Felice, Vittorio Checchi, Roberto Pistilli, Antonio Scarano, Gerardo Pellegrino, Marco Esposito Bone augmentation versus 5-mm dentalimplants in posterioratrophicjaws. One-Year post-loading results from a randomised
controlled clinical trial. European Journal of Oral Implantology2009;2(4)267–281
- Felice P, Marchetti C, Piattelli A, Pellegrino G, Checchi V, Worthington H, Esposito M. Vertical ridge augmentation of the atrophic posteriormandible with interpositional block grafts: bone from the iliac crest versus bovine an organic
bone. Results up to delivery of the fina lprostheses from a split-mouth, randomised, controlled trial. Eur.J. Oral Implantol.2008;1(3):193-1198.