Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials for the Management of Limited Vertical Height in the Posterior Region: Short Implants (5 to 8 mm) vs Longer Implants (> 8 mm) in Vertically Augmented Sites

Abstract

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: Three‐year results of a randomized clinical study

“…There is no agreement on the definition of a SI: some authors consider an implant as short when its length is inferior to 10 mm, 36,37 whereas for others implant length must be inferior or equal to 8 mm. 3,13,14,16 In the present randomized clinical study implants long between 8.5 and 6.5 mm were considered short and implants with a length superior or equal to 10 mm as standard.…”

“…High implant and prosthesis survival rates for both short implants (SIs) and standard length implants in association with sinus lift were reported in several medium-short term clinical studies [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and systematic reviews. [12][13][14][15][16] In addition, no statistical differences were reported for marginal bone loss. [13][14][15] However, SA is a more complex therapeutic option than SIs, generally associated to a higher total treatment time and cost, 17 a greater postoperative morbidity, and also a higher risks of complications.…”

“…[12][13][14][15][16] In addition, no statistical differences were reported for marginal bone loss. [13][14][15] However, SA is a more complex therapeutic option than SIs, generally associated to a higher total treatment time and cost, 17 a greater postoperative morbidity, and also a higher risks of complications. 1,14,16 The use of platelet concentrates in oral surgery may represent a valuable tool due to the action of growth factors and various proactive components released from platelet granules upon activation.…”

Do short implants have similar survival rates compared to standard implants in posterior single crown?: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…In the item "random sequence generation and allocation concealment," one study was classified as having a high risk of bias because it was not randomized. 72 Two other systematic reviews that evaluated both short and standard implants compared all the included studies in the same meta-analysis, apart from different follow-up periods. When a radiographic evaluation is needed to assess bone loss, it is possible to identify the group to which the implant belongs, preventing the "blinding of outcome assessment."…”

“…Flow diagram of the search strategy lost before the 1-year follow-up, two failures occurred between the second-and third-year of follow-ups, and one loss during the 4-year follow-up period. Reviews with meta-analysis comparing short implants with standard implants using splinted prosthesis in the posterior region have also not demonstrated difference in the success rate between the two types of implants 24,72. 40 Figure 3 shows the forest plot for the meta-analysis for survival rate for the 1-year follow-up studies.…”