ScienceMed®

Cost Effectiveness of Two Short Implants Versus One Short Implant With a Cantilever in the Posterior Region: 7.5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomised Controlled Trial

Ortopedia
Imagem de arquivo, ilustrativa — não é do estudo. Corte anatômico do pé mostrando a trama do osso esponjoso (1906). American Practice of Surgery (1906), via Internet Archive · domínio público · Wikimedia Commons

Ensaio clínico randomizadoNível 2 · Nova evidênciaJournal of clinical periodontology21 set 20253 citações

Salvar

Resumo original em inglês

O que aconteceu

To compare long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a single short implant (6 mm) supporting a cantilevered restoration versus two adjacent short implants with non-splinted single crowns over a 7.5-year follow-up and determine which approach is more cost effective.

A total of 36 patients with at least a two-tooth gap in the posterior region were randomised to receive either one short implant with a cantilever prosthesis (ONE-C) or two short implants with individual crowns (TWO). Fixed restorations were placed 3-6 months post implantation, and patients were evaluated at baseline and at 6 months and 1, 3, 5 and 7.5 years. Kaplan-Meier curves, mixed-effects models and cost-effectiveness models were used to compare the groups.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01649531.

O que encontraram

Twenty-five patients (15 in ONE-C, 10 in TWO) completed the 7.5-year follow-up. Implant survival was 83.3% in group ONE-C and 86.6% in group TWO, with no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.772). No statistically significant differences were found between groups for marginal bone levels (mean difference -0.16 [95% CI: -0.7 to 0.3] p = 0.57), probing depth (mean difference -0.13 [95% CI: -0.5 to 0.3] p = 0.58), bleeding on probing (mean difference 0.0 [95% CI: -0.0; 0.2] p = 0.31) or plaque levels (mean difference -0.0 [95% CI: -0.1 to 0.1] p = 0.93). Technical complications were more frequent in the ONE-C group (64%) than in the TWO group (36%).

Por que isso importa

Both treatment approaches showed comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes. Short implants supporting cantilever restorations were generally more cost effective than two short implants but exhibited higher early complication and failure rates, likely related to mechanical overload.

Resumo publicado sob licença CC BY. A tradução para o português ainda não chegou a este estudo.

O estudo original

Cost Effectiveness of Two Short Implants Versus One Short Implant With a Cantilever in the Posterior Region: 7.5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomised Controlled Trial

Franz Josef Strauß, Lucia Schiavon, Nadja Naenni, Riccardo D Kraus, Gustavo Sáenz-Ravello, Nicolas Müller, Ronald E Jung, Daniel S Thoma

Descritores MeSH

  • Dental Prosthesis Design
  • Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Dental Implants, Single-Tooth
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
  • Middle Aged
  • Dental Implants

Veja também

Estudos relacionados