Interventions for Dental Implant Placement in Atrophic Edentulous Mandibles: Vertical Bone Augmentation and Alternative Treatments. A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Camps‐Font, Octavi; Burgueño-Barris, Genís; Figueiredo, Rui; Jung, Ronald E.; Gay‐Escoda, Cosme; Valmaseda‐Castellón, Eduard

doi:10.1902/jop.2016.160226

Cited by 36 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple studies have reported that bone augmentation procedure for implants was not shown favorable outcomes due to the high rate of postoperative complications and risk factors . However, we found that bone augmentation procedure was more beneficial at the single missing tooth area in this study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Yang

Chen

Gao

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Narrow‐diameter implants (NDIs) have been proposed to address the dilemma of implant installation in cases of insufficient bone volume. However, the potential risk factors of failed NDIs, and whether reimplants with reliable efficacy are still controversial. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the survival/success rate of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region and that of reimplants at the same site, as well as to explore the potential risk factors of original and replaced implants. Materials and Methods From January 2015 to April 2019, patients receiving NDIs in the anterior maxilla were enrolled in the present study. Multiple variables were assessed to exploit the risk factor of failed NDIs, including age, sex, implant sites, length, surface characteristics, and healing abutment designs. The relationship between bone augmentation and the number of missing teeth was assessed. For failed NDIs, the reasons for NDIs removal and marginal bone loss (MBL) were analyzed. The details and outcomes of reimplants were evaluated. Results Cumulative survival rates (CSRs) and success rates of 1095 NDIs installed in 835 patients were 96.99% and 96.51%, respectively. In total, 33 of these NDIs failed. TiUnite (TU) surface was a risk factor and it affected the success rate (92.56%) and CSR (92.4%) of NDIs (P < .001). The single NDIs with bone augmentation have lower failure rate. The average MBL for 33 failed NDIs was 1.92 ± 1.91 mm. Additionally, 22 patients with 23 NDIs accepted reimplantation of previously failed NDIs, and the success rate of reimplants was 95.65%. Conclusions Surface characteristic (TU surface) was a risk factor for failure of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region. Bone augmentation simultaneously performed during NDIs implantation was favorable for a single missing tooth. As an alternative plan, the reimplantation of failed NDIs was reliable and stable after successful bone reconstruction.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Yang

Chen

Gao

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The peculiarity of this study lies in the marked difference in the implant length between the test and control groups, namely a minimum of 4 mm. Preceding investigations comparing short implants to long implants, being either ≤8 mm versus >8 mm (Camps-Font et al, 2016;Lee et al, 2014) or ≤8 mm versus ≥9.3 mm (Tong et al, 2017), may not have been able to distinguish the variations or common treatment impacts across different studies. Additionally, the recent publication of several RCT's (Bechara et al, 2017;Bolle et al, 2018;Felice et al, 2018;Gastaldi et al, 2017Gastaldi et al, , 2018Naenni et al, 2018;Pohl et al, 2017;Rossi et al, 2015;Sahrmann et al, 2016) has allowed for a more efficient analysis of the scientific evidence in the existing literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous systematic reviews comparing short implants (≤8 mm) with long implants (>8 mm) placed after bone augmentation procedures found comparable survival rates, as well as less complications attributed to the short implants (Camps‐Font et al., ; Fan, Li, Deng, Wu & Zhang, ). However, this could be imputed to the small difference in implant length between the test and control groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing clinical and patient‐reported outcomes between extra‐short (≤6 mm) and longer (≥10 mm) implants

Ravidà

Wang

Barootchi

et al. 2018

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To compare the clinical outcomes of ≤6 mm extra‐short implants (test group) versus ≥10 mm long implants (control group), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Materials and Methods A systemic literature search of randomized clinical trials was performed using the PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases. A quantitative meta‐analysis was conducted to compare all the outcome variables. Meta‐regression analysis determined the effect of bone augmentation procedures and the influence of other clinical covariates on the results. Results Eighteen studies comprising 1,612 implants (793 extra‐short and 820 long implants) were selected for the meta‐analysis. No statistically significant difference in the survival rate was observed at 1 and 3 years (p > 0.05). Extra‐short implants displayed less marginal bone loss (MBL) from both implant placement time points (1 and 3 years) and prosthetic placement (1 year), as well as less biological complications, surgical time and treatment cost (p < 0.05). Contrarily, a statistically significant small number of prosthetic complications were reported with long implants (p < 0.05). Conclusions Placement of extra‐short implants (≤6 mm) presented as an equivalent option in the treatment of patients with an atrophic posterior arch up to 3‐year follow‐up. However, the long‐term effectiveness of extra‐short dental implants remains to be further studied.

show abstract

“…It is generally claimed that short implants have been associated with lower survival rates than standard length implants [32,33]. However, more recent studies revealed no apparent difference in performances between short and long implants, and suggested that the use of short implants may be a viable and effective alternative treatment option [17,34]. These results seem to be due to the technical innovations in both the surface characteristics and geometry (macro-and micro-) design of the implant, which helped to compensate for the unfavorable crown-to-implant ratio and lower surface area available for bone to implant contact [35].…”

Section: Short Implants and Implant Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

One-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Immediately Loaded Short Implants Placed in the Lower Posterior Single Molar Using a Complete Digital Workflow

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to evaluate immediately loaded single implants with varying lengths in the posterior mandible using a fully digital, model-free prosthetic-driven implant planning pathway, and to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of short and long implants. The 52 patients with the single tooth missing in the posterior molar regions of the mandible were randomly assigned to the control (CMI IS-III active® long implant; 5.0 × 10 mm) and experimental (CMI IS-III active® short implant; 5.5 × 6.6, 7.3, 8.5 mm) groups. For each patient, a single implant was placed using the computer aided surgical template and all prostheses were fabricated by means of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system on the virtual model. The patients received provisional and definitive monolithic zirconia prostheses at 1 week and 12 weeks after implant surgery, respectively. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements and periapical radiographs were taken and peri-implant parameters were evaluated at 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks after surgery. Nineteen long implants and 27 short implants were finally used for the statistical analysis. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of insertion torque, ISQ values (except 3 weeks), marginal bone loss, and peri-implant soft tissue parameters (p > 0.05). Both groups exhibited no stability dip during the early phase of healing. The average marginal bone loss from the baseline of implant placement for the control and experimental groups was −0.07 and 0.03 mm after 12 weeks and 0.06 and 0.05 mm after 48 weeks. All of the soft tissue parameters were within normal limits. Within the limits of the short term follow up, immediate loading of short single implants can be considered as one of predictable treatment modality in mandible with reduced bone height when primary stability can be achieved.

show abstract

Interventions for Dental Implant Placement in Atrophic Edentulous Mandibles: Vertical Bone Augmentation and Alternative Treatments. A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Abstract: Short implants in the posterior area of the mandible seem to be preferable to vertical augmentation procedures, which present similar implant and prosthetic failure rates but greater morbidity. All the vertical augmentation technique comparisons showed similar intergroup results.

Cited by 36 publications

References 53 publications

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing clinical and patient‐reported outcomes between extra‐short (≤6 mm) and longer (≥10 mm) implants

One-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Immediately Loaded Short Implants Placed in the Lower Posterior Single Molar Using a Complete Digital Workflow

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About