Short implants without bone augmentation versus long implants with bone augmentation. Systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donatas Bitinas ◽  
Gailė Bardijevskytė
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Short Implants

scholarly journals A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoran Yu ◽  
Ruogu Xu ◽  
Zhengchuan Zhang ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Feilong Deng
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Complications Rate

AbstractExtra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P  = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: − 0.22, CI − 0.277 to − 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI − 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

scholarly journals Long-term Short Implants Performance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Essential Assessment Parameters

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thais Marques Simek Vega Gonçalves ◽  
Sergio Bortolini ◽  
Matteo Martinolli ◽  
Bruna Fernandes Moreira Alfenas ◽  
Daiane Cristina Peruzzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Implant Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants

<p>Lack of standard criteria in the outcome assessment makes it difficult to draw conclusions on the clinical performance of short implants and, under these circumstances, determine the reasons for implant failure. This study evaluated, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, the essential parameters required to assess the long-term clinical performance of short and extra-short implants. Electronic databases (Pubmed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Database, Embase, and Lilacs) were searched by two independent reviewers, without language limitation, to identify eligible papers. References from the selected articles were also reviewed. The review included clinical trials involving short dental implants placed in humans, published between January 2000 and March 2014, which described the parameters applied for outcome's measurements and provided data on survival rates. Thirteen methodologically acceptable studies were selected and 24 parameters were identified. The most frequent parameters assessed were the marginal bone loss and the cumulative implant survival rate, followed by implant failure rate and biological complications such as bleeding on probing and probing pocket depths. Only cumulative implant survival rate data allows meta-analysis revealing a positive effect size (from 0.052 (fixed) to 0.042 (random)), which means that short implant appears to be a successful treatment option. Mechanical complications and crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio measurement were also commonly described, however, considering the available evidence; no strong conclusions could be drawn since different methods were used to assess each parameter. By means of this literature review, a standard evaluation scheme is proposed, being helpful to regiment further investigations and comparisons on future studies.</p>

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 890-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Tolentino da Rosa de Souza ◽  
Milena Binhame Albini Martini ◽  
Luciana Reis Azevedo-Alanis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Single Crown ◽  
Similar Survival

scholarly journals Effects of lateral bone augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 18-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Sanz-Sánchez ◽  
Ana Carrillo de Albornoz ◽  
Elena Figuero ◽  
Frank Schwarz ◽  
Ronald Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bone Augmentation

Failures in Single Extra-Short Implants (≤ 6 mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 669-689
Author(s):  
Maurício Badaró ◽  
Danny Marin ◽  
Patrícia Pauletto ◽  
Thais Gonçalves ◽  
André Porporatti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Short Implants
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document