Extra-Short Implants with Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation: A Prospective Clinical Study

Nizam, Nejat; Gürlek, Önder; Kaval, Mehmet Emin

doi:10.11607/jomi.7950

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there was a controversial debate regarding short implants due to the crown-root ratio, which may lead to more mechanical complications [35]. In recent years, comparing extrashort implants (length ≤ 6 mm) in native bone with longer implants (≥ 10 mm) after bone augmentation, similar success rates were found in both groups [12,13,[36][37][38]. With improvements in implant surface modifications, short implants have been widely used in dental surgery, and various studies have focused on short implants in native bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Lin

Jiao

et al. 2021

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Currently, insufficient bone volume always occurs in the posterior maxilla which makes implantation difficult. Short implants combined with transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) may be an option to address insufficient bone volume. Purpose The clinical performance of short implants combined with TSFE was compared with that of conventional implants combined with TSFE according to the survival rate. Method In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and manual searching. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies. The quality assessment was performed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. The odds ratio (OR) with its confidence interval (CI) was considered the essential outcome for estimating the effect of short implants combined with TSFE. Results The registration number is INPLASY202050092. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1 cohort study and 10 cross-sectional studies. With respect to the 1-year survival rate, no significant effect was observed between short implants (length ≤ 8 mm) and conventional implants combined with TSFE (I2=0%, OR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.55-1.96). Similarly, no difference was seen between the two groups regarding the survival rate during the healing period (I2=10%, OR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.28-1.97) and 3-year loading (OR=1.76, 95% CI: 0.65-4.74). Conclusion There was no evidence that the survival rate of short implants combined with TSFE was lower or higher than that of conventional implants combined with TSFE when the residual bone height was poor and the implant protrusion length of short implants was less than or similar to conventional implants. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of random controlled trials in our meta-analysis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In our research, implants equivalent to 8 mm and below were considered short implants [ 9 – 11 ]. And the implants equivalent to 6 mm and below were extrashort implants [ 12 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Lin

Jiao

et al. 2021

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some authors consider implants with a length range of 7-10 mm to be "short" [9], while recent studies defined an implant with an intra-bony length of ≤ 8 mm to be a short implant [10]. In this study, implants with a length of ≤ 8 mm were considered as short implants [11]. Short implants in the posterior maxilla have a clinical survival rate comparable to standard implants [12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tang

Luo

et al. 2022

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of using short implants (≤ 8 mm) inserted with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted with sinus floor elevation (SFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae with insufficient residual bone height (RBH). Methods An electronic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1994 to July 2022, in combination with a manual search of references in relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical results between short and standard implant placement with SFE were included. The primary outcomes were implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL); the secondary outcome was complication rate. Results Three RCTs were included, totaling 138 short and 156 standard implants. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the short and standard implant groups in survival rate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.96–1.08, p = 0.570), MBL (MD = − 0.13, 95% CI − 0.32 to 0.07, p = 0.190) and complication rate (intra-surgical complication: RR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.46–2.83, p = 0.770; post-operative complication: RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.71–2.55, p = 0.370). Conclusions Using short implants (≤ 8 mm) combined with OSFE might be an alternative to standard implants (≥ 10 mm) with SFE when the RBH of the posterior maxilla is insufficient. Based on a short-term clinical observation, short implants with OSFE show good results in terms of survival rate, MBL, and complication incidence. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

“…Two studies (Liu et al, 2019;Taschieri et al, 2018) were of a parallel design, while two (Nedir et al, 2017;Nizam et al, 2020) were a mix of parallel and split-mouth design. The follow-up period of studies included in Q2 ranged from 1 to 11 years after surgery.…”

Section: Study Design and Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fifteen studies reported on MBL at different time intervals. Nine studies reported MBL up to 3 years after surgery (An et al, 2019;Andrés-García et al, 2021;Lv et al, 2022;Nedir et al, 2009;Nizam et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2021;Xhanari et al, 2019;Yu et al, 2017;Zhou et al, 2021) ranging from 0.11 ± 0.39 mm to 0.99 ± 0.55 mm.…”

Section: The Outcomes Of Studies Answering Q2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Shi,

Han,

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis paper addressed two focused questions: Focused question 1 (Q1) “what is the clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation (TSFA), as compared to lateral sinus floor augmentation (LSFA) in sites with residual bone height (RBH) ≤6 mm, in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs)?”; Focused question 2 (Q2) “what is the estimated effectiveness of TSFA for outcomes in Q1, in RCTs, CCTs or cohort studies?”Materials and MethodsAn electronic search (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and hand search were conducted from January 1986 until December 2022. All eligible clinical studies expressly reporting TSFA in sites with RBH ≤6 mm were included. The data were extracted, and the risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated. Meta‐analysis was performed whenever possible.ResultsSeven RCTs were included for Q1 and 25 studies (9 RCTs, 2 CCTs, 14 single arm cohort studies) for Q2. Q1: Meta‐analysis did not show significant difference in the implant survival, sinus membrane perforation and marginal bone loss between TSFA and LSFA groups. Q2: Meta‐analysis showed TSFA had a high implant survival rate (96.5%, 95% CI: 93.2%–98.9%) at least 1 year after surgery, and limited sinus membrane perforation (5.4%, 95% CI: 2.7%–8.8%). The results also presented higher patient satisfaction for TSFA.ConclusionWith the limitations of the present study (high risk of bias in individual studies), it can be concluded that there was no significant difference in implant survival, Schneiderian membrane perforation and MBL between two approaches in sites with RBH ≤6 mm.

show abstract

Extra-Short Implants with Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation: A Prospective Clinical Study

Cited by 8 publications

References 12 publications

The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About