Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Uehara, Priscila Nakasone; Matsubara, Victor Haruo; Igai, Fernando; Sesma, Newton; Mukai, Márcio Katsuyoshi; Araújo, Maurício G.

doi:10.2174/1874210601812010354

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, in this review, 5 mm diameter implants tended to induce less MBL than 4 mm diameter implants. Implants ≤ 10 mm19 and ≤ 8 mm20 were reported to induce MBL similar to that of longer implants, while implants ≤ 7 mm57 showed less MBL. These results contradict a previous theory that short implants are more likely to have an extreme crown-to-implant ratio (C/I)58 that induces more peri-implant bone loss and early implant failure 59 60.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Short implants with improved implant design and surface properties have been successfully applied as an alternative to sinus floor elevation surgery and have shown good results in posterior maxilla. Implants ≤10 mm,19 ≤8 mm,20 ≤7 mm21 and 6–8 mm22 are reported to have survival rates comparable to those of longer implants. In addition, short implants ≤6 mm in length have been introduced as another alternative in atrophic posterior maxilla 6 23 24.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yan

et al. 2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1–3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1–3 years follow-up (MD=−0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=−0.25 mm, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yan

et al. 2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[ 38 39 ] Short and subcrestal dental implants have similar survival rate to regular implant, but the marginal bone loss was lower in short dental implants. [ 40 ] Although platform switch and insertion depths are two independent variables for the marginal bone loss, its synergistic effect can be effective in minimizing crestal bone loss by reducing inflammatory infiltrate and increasing implant–abutment interface from the marginal bone. All of which could be helpful in clinical scenario.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical evaluation of stress distribution in subcrestal placed platform-switched short dental implants in D4 bone: In vitro finite-element model study

Sesha

Sunduram²,

Abdelmagyd

2020

J Pharm Bioall Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A BSTRACT The present study was carried out to assess stress distribution in the maxillary posterior bone region (D4 bone) with the help of a short platform switched subcrestal dental implants using the FEM model. Missing teeth surfaces related to the maxillary posterior region were stimulated. The bone model had a cancellous core of (0.5 mm) which represents D4 bone. A 7.5x4.6 mm screw type implant system with 3.5 platform switch abutment was selected. ANSYS WORKBENCH was used to model all the finite element structures. Force of 100 N was tested and adapted at an angle of 0º, 15º, 30º on the tooth model. Overall results from the current study showed that a high amount of stress was seen in cortical than in relation to cancellous bone. Stress values reduced from equicrestal to subcrestal (2 mm) placement of dental implants irrespective of angulation of load from 0o to 30o in both types of bone. However higher stress values were seen when force was applied in an oblique direction (30o) in comparison to a vertical load (0o). Least amount of stress was noticed when platform switched implants were placed 0.5 mm subcrestatlly irrespective of angulations of a load. Platform switched short subcrestal implants reduced the stress in the D4 cortical bone than in contrary equicrestal implant placement. This results in the preservation of marginal bone leading to implant success.

show abstract

“…At present, less invasive approaches are advocated and encouraged by the advances in technology and by the enhanced knowledge of implant microstructure as well as by the related refinements of implant design and surface topography 5,13 . For these reasons, implants of reduced length (<10 mm) have evolved into a clinically feasible option to regenerative procedures and ST implant placement 14‐16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Iezzi

Felice

Barausse

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of <7 mm short (SH) implants inserted in native bone vs longer (ST) implants placed in vertically augmented partially edentulous posterior jaws. A further aim was to evaluate if the residual bone dimension plays a role in the outcomes of SH and extra-SH implants. Materials and Methods: This review was registered with PROSPERO. An electronic literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 1-year follow-up, comparing fixed prostheses supported by SH vs ST implants in augmented sites were included. Marginal bone level (MBL) changes, implant survival rate, and complications were evaluated through a meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed dividing the SH implants according to length at each follow-up (1-, 3-, 5-year of function). Results: Twenty-five articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, featuring a total of 650 SH implants placed in 415 patients and 685 ST implants placed in 403 patients. There was a trend for a significantly lower MBL associated with SH implants respect to ST implants at each follow-up, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in failure rates between SH and ST implants, for any SH length considered and at any follow-up. There was evidence for a lower incidence of complications in favor of SH implants at both 1-year (P < .0001) and 3-year follow-up (P = .01), while at 5-year follow-up there was no evidence of a difference between SH and ST groups (P = .30). Conclusion: SH implants supporting partial fixed rehabilitations represent a valuable alternative to augmentation procedures in the medium term. While the performance of implants at least 5-mm long is well documented, more studies with at least 5-year followup are needed to confirm the promising outcomes observed with <5 mm-long fixtures.

show abstract

Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cited by 21 publications

References 33 publications

Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Biomechanical evaluation of stress distribution in subcrestal placed platform-switched short dental implants in D4 bone: In vitro finite-element model study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About