Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis
Authors:
- Vittorio MoraschiniVittorio Moraschini
- Carlos Fernando de Almeida Barros MourãoCarlos Fernando de Almeida Barros Mourão
- Pietro MontemezziPietro Montemezzi
- Ingrid Chaves Cavalcante KischinhevskyIngrid Chaves Cavalcante Kischinhevsky
- Daniel Costa Ferreira de AlmeidaDaniel Costa Ferreira de Almeida
- Kayvon JavidKayvon Javid
- Jamil Awad ShibliJamil Awad Shibli
- José Mauro GranjeiroJosé Mauro Granjeiro
- Monica Diuana Calasans-MaiaMonica Diuana Calasans-Maia
Open Access
- 12 March 2021
- journal article
- review article
- Published by MDPI AG in Healthcare
- Vol. 9 (3) , 315
Abstract
This systematic review (SR) aimed to evaluate implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), and biological/prosthetic complications of extra-short 4 mm dental implants. An electronic search without language or date restrictions was performed in five databases and in gray literature for articles published until August 2020. Prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the clinical performance of extra-short 4 mm dental implants were included. Studies were independently assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. The protocol of this SR was registered in the PROSPERO database under number CRD42019139709. Four studies were included in the present SR. There was no significant difference in implant survival rate (p = 0.75) between extra-short 4 mm and long implants. After 12 months of function, the extra-short implants had a significantly (p = 0.003) lower marginal bone loss (MBL) rate when compared to long implants. Extra-short implants had a lower number of biological and prosthetic complications when compared to long implants. After 12 months of follow-up, extra-short 4 mm dental implants placed in the mandible exhibit satisfactory clinical outcomes concerning implant survival rate and MBL when compared to longer implants, with a low number of biological and prosthetic complications. A higher number of RCTs with longer follow-up is necessary for the future.Keywords
This publication has 47 references indexed in Scilit:
- Influence of Crown/Implant Ratio on Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic ReviewJournal of Periodontology, 2014
- Do Implant Length and Width Matter for Short Dental Implants (<10 mm)? A Meta‐Analysis of Prospective StudiesJournal of Periodontology, 2013
- Tissue changes of extraction sockets in humans: a comparison of spontaneous healing vs. ridge preservation with secondary soft tissue healingClinical Oral Implants Research, 2012
- A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate and Compare Implants Placed in Augmented Versus Non‐Augmented Extraction Sockets: 3‐Year ResultsJournal of Periodontology, 2012
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Failures in Jaw Reconstructive Surgery with Autogenous Onlay Bone Grafts for Pre-implant Purposes: Incidence, Prevention and Management of ComplicationsOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America, 2011
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA StatementJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendationsBMJ, 2008
- Implant Success, Survival, and Failure: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus ConferenceImplant Dentistry, 2008
- Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questionsBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2007