Tengfei Fan1, Yicun Li1, Wei-Wei Deng1, Tianfu Wu1, Wenfeng Zhang1,2. 1. The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology & Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. 2. Department of Oral Maxillofacial-Head Neck Oncology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The specific purposes of this study were (1) to undertake a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis based only on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare the rates of survival and complications of short implants to those of long implants; (2) to compare the surgical time and cost of short implants to those of long implants. METHODS: RCTs were identified from the major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) using the keywords "dental implant," "short implant" and "atrophic maxilla," and a quantitative meta-analysis was conducted. The survival rate of implants and complications were the primary outcome measures, and other parameters assessed included costs and surgical time. RESULTS: Seven RCTs that met the inclusion criteria included 554 implants (265 implants in the short implant group). There was no significant difference in survival rate between two groups (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: [0.97, 1.03]; p = .96; seven trials, 554 participants). Compared with long implant group, the short implant group had a lower complications and the effect measure was significant (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: [0.37, 0.90]; p = .02; seven trials, 554 participants). CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that no difference between the survival rates of short implants (5-8 mm) and long implants (>8 mm); complications in short implants are lower than that in long implants. However, further studies are required to substantiate our findings.
OBJECTIVE: The specific purposes of this study were (1) to undertake a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis based only on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare the rates of survival and complications of short implants to those of long implants; (2) to compare the surgical time and cost of short implants to those of long implants. METHODS: RCTs were identified from the major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) using the keywords "dental implant," "short implant" and "atrophic maxilla," and a quantitative meta-analysis was conducted. The survival rate of implants and complications were the primary outcome measures, and other parameters assessed included costs and surgical time. RESULTS: Seven RCTs that met the inclusion criteria included 554 implants (265 implants in the short implant group). There was no significant difference in survival rate between two groups (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: [0.97, 1.03]; p = .96; seven trials, 554 participants). Compared with long implant group, the short implant group had a lower complications and the effect measure was significant (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: [0.37, 0.90]; p = .02; seven trials, 554 participants). CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that no difference between the survival rates of short implants (5-8 mm) and long implants (>8 mm); complications in short implants are lower than that in long implants. However, further studies are required to substantiate our findings.
Authors: Maria Piedad Ramírez Fernández; Sergio A Gehrke; Patricia Mazón; Jose L Calvo-Guirado; Piedad N De Aza Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo Lemos; Fellippo Ramos Verri; Joel Ferreira Santiago Junior; Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista; Daniel Takanori Kemmoku; Pedro Yoshito Noritomi; Eduardo Piza Pellizzer Journal: J Healthc Eng Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 2.682