Retracted: A 5‐year randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 4‐mm ultrashort to longer implants placed in regenerated bone in the posterior atrophic jaw

Abstract

Background: Short implants (up to 5-mm long) have shown good results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented bone.Purpose: To evaluate if 4-mm ultrashort implants could also be an alternative to bone augmentation in the severely atrophic posterior jaws. The primary aim of the study was to compare implant survival rates between study groups.Materials and Methods: Eighty partially edentulous patients with posterior atrophic jaws (5-6 mm of bone above the mandibular canal and 4-5 mm below the maxillary sinus) were included: 40 patients in the maxilla and 40 in mandible. The patients were randomized to receive one to three 4-mm ultrashort implants or one to three implants at least 10-mm long in augmented bone. Results are reported 5 years after loading with the following outcome measures: implant and prosthetic failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.Results: Thirty-two complications were reported for the control group in 18 patients versus 13 complications in 10 patients in the test group, the difference being not statistically significant (p = 0.103). In the augmented group, 12 implants failed in 6 patients versus 7 short implants in 6 cases, and 9 prostheses failed in the control group while 4 in the test one, without statistically significant differences (p = 1.000 and 0.363, respectively). At 5 years after loading, short implants lost on average 0.58 ± 0.40 mm of peri-implant marginal bone and long implants 0.99 ± 0.58 mm, the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.006). Conclusion:Four-millimeter ultrashort implants showed similar if not better results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented jaws 5 years after loading.For this reason, their use could be in specific cases preferable to bone augmentation since the treatment is less invasive, faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity. However, longer follow-ups and larger trials are needed.posterior jaws, short implants, vertical bone atrophy What is knownRecent systematic reviews reported similar results between short implants and long ones placed in augmented bone. However, clinicians may have to deal with even more atrophic patients.

Short and Extra Short Dental Implants in Osseous Microvascular Free Flaps: A Retrospective Case Series

“…As mentioned for patients with OMFFs, we try to avoid further surgical procedures due to a fundamental concern minimizing a patient's exposure to additional morbidities. Short dental implants have the unmistakable advantage of size, which most often precludes the need for augmentation surgeries and their associated morbidity [48,49]. According to Malet, the most important clinical recommendations for placing short implants [50] is to avoid generating heat.…”

Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10‐mm dental implants in different clinical scenarios: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta‐analysis, trial sequential analysis and quality of evidence grading

“…After duplicate removal, 733 unique records were screened upon which 56 full-text articles were assessed, leading to the further exclusion of 16 articles. Finally, 40 publications reporting on 19 RCTs were included (Barausse et al, 2022;Bechara et al, 2017;Bernardi et al, 2018;Bolle et al, 2018;Cannizzaro et al, 2015Cannizzaro et al, , 2018Esposito et al, 2011Esposito et al, , 2014Felice et al, 2015Felice et al, , 2018Felice et al, , 2020Gastaldi et al, 2017Gastaldi et al, , 2018Guida et al, 2020Guida et al, , 2023Guljé et al, 2013Guljé et al, , 2014Guljé et al, , 2019Guljé et al, , 2021Naenni et al, 2018;Nielsen et al, 2021;Pistilli, Felice, Cannizzaro, et al, 2013;Pistilli, Felice, Piattelli, et al, 2013;Pohl et al, 2017;Romeo et al, 2014;Rossi et al, 2016;Sahrmann et al, 2016Sahrmann et al, , 2023Schincaglia et al, 2015;Shah et al, 2018;Shi et al, 2019;Storelli et al, 2018;Thoma et al, 2018Thoma et al, , 2024Thoma, Haas, et al, 2015;Weerapong et al, 2019;Zadeh et al, 2018) (Guida et al, 2020(Guida et al, , 2023Shi et al, 2019), 16 ...…”

“…Only data from the same RCT at 1 year (Bolle et al, 2018), 3 years (Felice et al, 2020) and 5 years (Barausse et al, 2022) were available, so no meta-analysis was performed for any duration (Tables 2, 3, and 5; Tables S9 and S13).…”

“…When considering implant placement as baseline (Barausse et al, 2022;Bechara et al, 2017;Bolle et al, 2018;Esposito et al, 2014;Felice et al, 2018;Gastaldi et al, 2018;Nielsen et al, 2021;Pistilli, Felice, Cannizzaro, et al, 2013; Pistilli, Felice, Piattelli, T A B L E 4 Summary of the level of certainty/quality of the evidence assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) (Guyatt et al, 2011;Schünemann et al, 2013Schünemann et al, , 2023 for relative risk ratios for survival rates of short (≤6 mm pooled) compared with long (≥10 mm) implants according to different clinical scenarios and study durations. Sinus floor augmentation (maxilla) (Tables S1 and S2) No GRADE score…”

“…Short versus long (vertical ridge augmentation in mandible)(18)Barausse et al (2022),Felice et al (2020),…”