Comparing short dental implant and standard dental implant in terms of marginal bone level changes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Purpose: To compare short implants (SH; 4-8 mm) to standard implants (ST; longer than 8 mm) in edentulous jaws, evaluating pri-implant marginal bone levels (MBLs) changes, implant failures (IFs), complications, and prosthesis failures (PFs). Materials and Methods: Electronic searches were conducted through the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov to locate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SH to ST. Meta-analysis procedures were performed on the weighted mean difference (WMD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) of MBLs using Stata. Results: Twenty-three articles were included in this review. The WMD of MBLs when comparing SH to ST in both jaws up to 1-year follow-up was statistically significant preferring SH (WMD: −0.09 [CI: −0.12, −0.06], I 2 : 67.0%). The efficacy of SH vs ST on SMD of MBLs was moderate (SMD: −0.43 [CI: −0.57, −0.28], I 2 : 55.7%). There were no significant differences in IF (RR: 0.75 [0.44,1.27]) and PF (RR: 0.58 (0.22,1.581), and significantly higher biological complications (RR: 0.25 [0.15, 0.40]) for SH was observed compared to the ST in both jaws up to 1-year follow-up.Conclusions: SH and ST implants showed the comparable outcomes except biological complication preferring SH. Future systematic review and meta-analysis with longer and larger RCTs are required to confirm the present outcomes.

Are <7‐mm long implants in native bone as effective as longer implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…This up‐to‐date review found that implants shorter than 7 mm can be as effective as standard‐length implants in augmented sites for the rehabilitation of partially edentulous and posterior atrophic jaws. As compared to previous reviews that investigated the performance of SH implants, 3,4,6,7,12,17,23,24,26,27,93‐97 the present one counted on a wider database and a longer follow‐up, and only focused on RCTs comparing SH implants inserted in edentulous atrophic jaws and ST implants in reconstructed atrophic jaws, of comparable residual bone dimension. In fact, several studies were excluded because the residual bone dimension differed between test and control group (eg, SH implants in atrophic jaws vs ST implants in non‐atrophic edentulous jaws), or ST implants were inserted without augmentation procedures, or SH implants were inserted with concomitant augmentation procedures.…”

“…Nevertheless, a fairly consistent trend was found for the outcome variables investigated. In spite of a claimed unfavorable crown‐to‐implant ratio, that could theoretically lead to biomechanical issues and excessive stress on the marginal bone, 17,27,93,94,100‐102 there was evidence for a lower MBL change around SH implants, respect to ST implants, up to 5‐year follow‐up (Table 4). Regarding failure rate, the absence of a significant difference between groups (Table 5), suggested that the loss of an implant is independent of the implant length, and other factors can be responsible.…”

Short vs. Standard Length Cone Morse Connection Implants: An In Vitro Pilot Study in Low Density Polyurethane Foam

“…SI are less invasive, simpler to use in the hands of the average clinician, and their surgery is shorter, with a lower morbidity, lower costs and lesser biological complications [1,[3][4][5][6][7]. More recently, Ultrashort or Extra-short (<6 mm) implants have been proposed [8][9][10][11]. Alternatives to the use of SI are sinus augmentation procedures, the use of zygomatic implants, guided bone regeneration procedures, onlay grafts, inlay grafts, distraction osteogenesis, and lateralization of the inferior alveolar nerve [4,12].…”

“…Alternatives to the use of SI are sinus augmentation procedures, the use of zygomatic implants, guided bone regeneration procedures, onlay grafts, inlay grafts, distraction osteogenesis, and lateralization of the inferior alveolar nerve [4,12]. Several recent systematic reviews, some of them with a metanalysis of the data, have shown: no differences in the in the survival rate between SI and standard length implants (ST); no differences in marginal bone loss (MBL); lower biological complications in SI; good primary stability in SI; higher mechanical complications in SI [3,4,9,10,[13][14][15][16].…”

Influence of crown‐to‐implant ratio and different prosthetic designs on the clinical conditions of short implants in posterior regions: A 4‐year retrospective clinical and radiographic study

“…5 Recent clinical studies have proven high survival rates of short implants that were comparable to the survival rates of standard implants. 6,7 Our previous study demonstrated that the 2-year performance of 6.5-mm short implants placed using osteotome sinus floor elevation procedures, exhibited similar clinical outcomes to long implants placed using lateral sinus floor elevation in severely atrophic posterior maxillae. 8 However, there is limited evidence for short implants from studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.…”