Plinio Senna

Prof. Dr. Plinio Senna

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

17Years (2010-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
14 July 2015 in International Endodontic Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ESEmmanuel Silva
Emmanuel Silva
MCM. F. Carapiá
M. F. Carapiá
RLR. M. Lopes
R. M. Lopes
FBFelipe G. Belladonna
Felipe G. Belladonna
PSPlinio Senna
Plinio Senna
GDG. De‐Deus
G. De‐Deus

14 June 2016 in International Endodontic Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
NCN. K. Carvalho
N. K. Carvalho
MPM. C. Prado
M. C. Prado
PSPlinio Senna
Plinio Senna
ANA. A. Neves
A. A. Neves
ESE. M. Souza
E. M. Souza
ESEmmanuel Silva
Emmanuel Silva

21 March 2012 in Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PSPlinio Senna
Plinio Senna
ACAltair Antoninha Del Bel Cury
Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury
CRC. Rösing
C. Rösing

1 November 2016 in Journal of Endodontics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ESEmmanuel Silva
Emmanuel Silva
NCNancy Kudsi Carvalho
Nancy Kudsi Carvalho
MPMarina C. Prado
Marina C. Prado
MZMayara Zanon
Mayara Zanon
PSPlinio Senna
Plinio Senna
GDGustavo De-Deus
Gustavo De-Deus

28 November 2013 in Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PSPlinio Senna
Plinio Senna
ACAltair Antoninha Del Bel Cury
Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury
SKStephen Kates
Stephen Kates
LMLuiz Meirelles
Luiz Meirelles

1 June 2014 in Journal of Periodontology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JMJose Alfredo Mendonça
Jose Alfredo Mendonça
CFCarlos Eduardo Francischone
Carlos Eduardo Francischone
PSPlinio Senna
Plinio Senna
AOAna Elisa Matos de Oliveira
Ana Elisa Matos de Oliveira
BSBruno Salles Sotto‐Maior
Bruno Salles Sotto‐Maior
Background: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the survival rate and bone loss around short implants (≤10 mm) supporting splinted or non‐splinted posterior prostheses during a follow‐up period of 3 to 16 years.Methods: A total of 453 implants from 198 patients was divided into splinted or non‐splinted groups. Implant survival rate was calculated for each group, and potential risk was represented as odds ratio (OR). The final linear distance from implant platform level to the first bone‐to‐implant contact was compared to this same reference just after loading by digital periapical radiographs to determine the marginal bone loss (BL).Results: The splinted group comprised 219 implants in 86 patients, whereas the non‐splinted group included 234 implants from 112 patients. The mean follow‐up period was 9.7 ± 3.7 years. Although different success rates were found for splinted (97.7%) and non‐splinted (93.2%) groups, they exhibited similar BL (1.22 ± 0.95 mm and 1.27 ± 1.15 mm, respectively). The success of splinted implants was associated with no other variable, whereas non‐splinted implants exhibited higher risk of failure when placed in men (OR = 3.2) and when implants shorter than 10 mm were used (OR = 3.6 and 4.1 for 8.5 mm and 7 mm, respectively). Regardless of group, 71.4% of the unsuccessful implants failed before the end of the first year after loading.Conclusion: Non‐splinted posterior short implants had a somewhat lower success rate than splinted short implants, and the failure rate in non‐splinted short implants appeared to be greater in males as well as in implants ≤10 mm.