Short implants (5‐8 mm) vs long implants (≥10 mm) with augmentation in atrophic posterior jaws: A meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Chen, Suya; Ou, Qianmin; Wang, Yan; Lin, Xuefeng

doi:10.1111/joor.12860

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The comparison of late failure rates, showed similar results to those for early failure. This result is supported by recent systematic reviews and meta‐analyses, 9,22,55 which found no significant difference in implant survival for short implants compared to standard implants, for up to 5 years of follow‐up. In addition, these studies also showed lower peri‐implant marginal bone loss in the short dental implant group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…Moreover, short implants exhibit fewer biological complications. 9,22 Therefore, these studies have laid a foundation for dentists to further accept short implants and expand the scope of placement of short implants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent meta‐analysis that included twenty‐three clinical studies concluded that short and standard implants showed comparable implant failure rates, marginal bone level changes, and prosthetic failure rates. Moreover, short implants exhibit fewer biological complications 9,22 . Therefore, these studies have laid a foundation for dentists to further accept short implants and expand the scope of placement of short implants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Failure Risk of Short Dental Implants Under Immediate Loading: A Meta‐Analysis

Shi

Huang

et al. 2021

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Currently, there is no clear clinical evidence that short implants are suitable for immediate loading. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to evaluate whether immediate loading increases the failure risk of short dental implants. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42020195890). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect all clinical studies comparing the failure rates of short dental implants (<10 mm) and standard implants (≥10 mm) under the condition of immediate loading and studies comparing the failure rates of short dental implants under immediate loading versus early or delayed loading. All of the clinical studies with available relevant data were eligible for inclusion. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was adopted to evaluate the risk of bias for the randomized controlled trial (RCT), while Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used for the observational studies (OS). The OR value of each included study and its 95% CI were pooled to estimate the failure risk of short dental implants under immediate loading. The heterogeneity among studies was evaluated through Cochran's Q test and I 2 . Results: Seventeen studies, 5 RCTs and 12 OS studies, with a total of 2461 dental implants were analyzed. Four of the RCT studies were of low risk of bias and one was of unclear risk, while all of the OS studies were of moderate or high quality. Compared with standard implants, short implants did not have an increased failure risk under immediate loading (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.67-2.84, p = 0.997, fixed model). In addition, the OR value of implant failure for short implants under immediate loading compared to that for short implants under early or delayed loading was 1.22 (95% CI: 0.33-4.55, p = 0.104, random model), which was also not significantly different. Conclusions: There is not enough evidence to show that short dental implants under immediate loading may have higher implant failure risk compared to standard implants under immediate loading and short implants under early or delayed loading. Therefore, an immediate loading protocol may not increase the failure risk of short dental implants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Failure Risk of Short Dental Implants Under Immediate Loading: A Meta‐Analysis

Shi

Huang

et al. 2021

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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: 93%

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

“…The success of short dental implants remains a controversial topic, mainly due to the variability in the literature regarding not only their definition but also the study protocols used. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have highlighted the predictability of short dental implants with survival rates comparable to longer implants-or the so-called "conventional implants"-when placed in pristine or augmented bone [3,4,9,10,[40][41][42][43]. On the other hand, some clinical studies have reported a higher risk of failure for short implants when compared with longer implants [17,44].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Caramês

Francisco

Fialho

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This retrospective study evaluated the survival rate of short, sandblasted acid-etched surfaced implants with 6 and 8 mm lengths with at least 120 days of follow-up. Data concerning patient, implant and surgery characteristics were retrieved from clinical records. Sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA)-surfaced tissue-level 6 mm (TL6) or 8 mm (TL8) implants or bone-level tapered 8 mm (BLT8) implants were used. Absolute and relative frequency distributions were calculated for qualitative variables and mean values and standard deviations for quantitative variables. A Cox regression model was performed to verify whether type, length and/or width influence the implant survival. The cumulative implant survival rate was assessed by time-to-event analyses (Kaplan–Meier estimator). In all, 513 patients with a mean age of 58.00 ± 12.44 years received 1008 dental implants with a mean follow-up of 21.57 ± 10.77 months. Most implants (78.17%) presented a 4.1 mm diameter, and the most frequent indication was a partially edentulous arch (44.15%). The most frequent locations were the posterior mandible (53.97%) and the posterior maxilla (31.55%). No significant differences were found in survival rates between groups of type, length and width of implant with the cumulative rate being 97.7% ± 0.5%. Within the limitations of this study, the evaluated short implants are a predictable option with high survival rates during the follow-up without statistical differences between the appraised types, lengths and widths.

show abstract

Short implants (5‐8 mm) vs long implants (≥10 mm) with augmentation in atrophic posterior jaws: A meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Cited by 18 publications

References 27 publications

Failure Risk of Short Dental Implants Under Immediate Loading: A Meta‐Analysis

Failure Risk of Short Dental Implants Under Immediate Loading: A Meta‐Analysis

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

Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About