Comparative analysis between extra‐short implants (≤6 mm) and 6 mm‐longer implants: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trial

Abstract

The goal of this systematic study was to compare the survival rate (SR), marginal bone loss (MBL) and clinical complications between extra-short implants (≤6 mm) and 6-mm-longer implants in randomized clinical trials. A systematic electronic and manual search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and DOAJ databases. A metaanalysis was conducted to compare the SR and MBL between both groups. We have selected 17 studies out of 1016 articles for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The data from 956 patients and 1779 implants were used with an overall mean clinical follow-up of 3.88 years ranging from 1 to 8 years. Overall, the SR of extra-short implants (93.12%) was lower than the observed in 6-mm-longer implants (95.98%); however, there was no statistical significance on these findings (P > 0.10). MBL analysis showed that extra-short implants and the 6-mm-longer group presented an average of À0.71 and À0.92 mm after 1-year respectively. Three years follow-up showed MBL of À0.42 mm (≤6 mm) and À0.43 mm (>6 mm); 5 years follow-up showed an MBL of À0.69 mm (≤6 mm) and À0.46 mm (>6 mm); and after 8 years of follow-up, it was found an MBL of À1.58 mm (≤6 mm) and À2.46 mm (>6 mm). Within the limitation of this study, the results indicated that SR of extra-short implants was similar to 6-mm-longer implants. In contrast, MBL and the presence of clinical complications were observed at a lessened rate on extra-short implants.

The Influence of rhBMP-7 Associated with Nanometric Hydroxyapatite Coatings Titanium Implant on the Osseointegration: A Pre-Clinical Study

“…The implant biomaterial’s ability to allow hard and soft tissue healing around the implant device is strongly related to the clinical success of implant dentistry [ 30 ]. Low bone density, atrophic alveolar ridges, or immediate loading protocol constantly challenges success ratios above 90% reported for dental implantology [ 31 ]. Thus, improvements in the biomechanical systems through the implant design can cause an increase in biocompatibility and osteoconductivity or osteoinductivity, leading to faster and greater bone healing or achieving a desirable turnover [ 2 , 5 , 14 ].…”

Bisphosphonates and Their Influence on the Implant Failure: A Systematic Review

“…Over the years, studies have been carried out to find the most suitable material for the composition of the implants and the consequent success or failure of their osseointegration [3][4][5]. The most scientifically studied implants are titanium implants, and more recently, investigations and comparisons with zirconia material have emerged [3][4][5]. According to Hanawa (2020) [6], titanium has shown excellent biocompatibility, corrosion-resistance, and high fracture toughness based on high strength and elongation.…”

Investigating the impact of diameters and thread designs on the Biomechanics of short implants placed in D4 bone: a 3D finite element analysis

“…Therefore, extra-short, short, and wide implants have been recommended for those regions where there is not enough bone accessible for surgical insertion [ 22 ]. Short implants are typically placed in the alveolar bone with less height, offering several advantages over conventional implants in terms of cost, execution period, treatment requirements, and risks [ 23 ]. Moreover, the restorations with prosthetic components with a width smaller than the diameter of the implant may have less or no crestal bone resorption, favoring long-term success (platform switching) [ 24 , 25 ].…”