Short implants compared to regular dental implants after bone augmentation in the atrophic posterior mandible: umbrella review and meta-analysis of success outcomes
Authors:
- Gustavo Sáenz-RavelloGSGustavo Sáenz-Ravello
- Benjamín Ossandón-ZúñigaBOBenjamín Ossandón-Zúñiga
- Vicente Muñoz-MezaVMVicente Muñoz-Meza
- Dante Mora-FerraroDMDante Mora-Ferraro
- Mauricio BaezaMBMauricio Baeza
- Shengchi FanSFShengchi Fan
- Keyvan SaghebKSKeyvan Sagheb
- Eik SchiegnitzESEik Schiegnitz
- Leonardo DíazLDLeonardo Díaz
Open Access
- 4 July 2023
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in International Journal of Implant Dentistry
- Vol. 9 (1) , 1-25
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the body of evidence of short versus regular implants after bone augmentation (BA) in the atrophic posterior mandible in the context of implant treatment success outcomes.Methods: Seven databases, two registries, and reference lists were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR/MA), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies published in English, Spanish or German since 2012. Confidence in the SR/MA methodology was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 and the risk of bias of primary studies using Cochrane’s RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. A random-effects meta-analysis and a meta-regression were performed for continuous and dichotomous outcomes. GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results: Eighteen SRs/MAs, most of them “critically low” and “low” confidence with substantial overlap, included 14 relevant RCTs with a high risk of bias. A cohort study with moderate risk of bias was added. Quantitative synthesis of 595 implants and 281 hemiarches/patients indicates that the use of short implants (< 10 mm) compared to regular implants and BA may reduce implant failure at 1-year follow-up, and marginal bone loss (MBL) at 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; is likely to reduce the risk of biological complications at 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; and may be the patient's preferred alternative. There is a correlation between bone height, MBL and biological complications.Conclusions: The available evidence partially suggests that the use of short implants could decrease implant failure, MBL, and biological complications, and increase patient satisfaction. However, given the need for further RCTs and real-world evidence to fully evaluate short- and long-term outcomes, it would be prudent for clinicians to carefully consider the individual needs and circumstances of the patients before deciding whether to use short implants.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022333526GraphicalKeywords
This publication has 114 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone lossThe Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2016
- Potential Bone to Implant Contact Area of Short Versus Standard ImplantsImplant Dentistry, 2016
- Letter to the Editor: Re: Bruxism is Unlikely to Cause Damage to the Periodontium: Findings from a Systematic Literature AssessmentJournal of Periodontology, 2016
- Augmentation of the alveolar ridge compared with shorter implants in atrophic jaws: a meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trialsBritish Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2016
- Analysis of the biomechanical behavior of short implants: The photo-elasticity methodMaterials Science and Engineering: C, 2015
- Sample size considerations for split-mouth designStatistical Methods in Medical Research, 2015
- Does Bruxism Contribute to Dental Implant Failure? A Systematic Review and Meta‐AnalysisClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2015
- Longevity of dental implants in type IV bone: a systematic reviewInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2014
- Meta‐analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior regionJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2013
- Vertical augmentation with interpositional blocks of anorganic bovine bone vs. 7‐mm‐long implants in posterior mandibles: 1‐year results of a randomized clinical trialClinical Oral Implants Research, 2010