Tahereh Bitaraf1, Abbasali Keshtkar2, Amir Reza Rokn3, Abbas Monzavi4, Allahyar Geramy5, Kazem Hashemi6. 1. Dental Implant Research Center, Dental Faculty, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Health Sciences Education Development, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Dental Implant Research Center, Dental Research Institute, Department of Periodontics of Dental School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Dental Research Institute, Department of Prosthodontics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 5. Dental Research Center, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 6. Dental Implant Research Center, Dental Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare short implants (SH; 4-8 mm) to standard implants (ST; longer than 8 mm) in edentulous jaws, evaluating pri-implant marginal bone levels (MBLs) changes, implant failures (IFs), complications, and prosthesis failures (PFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted through the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov to locate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SH to ST. Meta-analysis procedures were performed on the weighted mean difference (WMD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) of MBLs using Stata. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were included in this review. The WMD of MBLs when comparing SH to ST in both jaws up to 1-year follow-up was statistically significant preferring SH (WMD: -0.09 [CI: -0.12, -0.06], I2 : 67.0%). The efficacy of SH vs ST on SMD of MBLs was moderate (SMD: -0.43 [CI: -0.57, -0.28], I2 : 55.7%). There were no significant differences in IF (RR: 0.75 [0.44,1.27]) and PF (RR: 0.58 (0.22,1.581), and significantly higher biological complications (RR: 0.25 [0.15, 0.40]) for SH was observed compared to the ST in both jaws up to 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: SH and ST implants showed the comparable outcomes except biological complication preferring SH. Future systematic review and meta-analysis with longer and larger RCTs are required to confirm the present outcomes.
PURPOSE: To compare short implants (SH; 4-8 mm) to standard implants (ST; longer than 8 mm) in edentulous jaws, evaluating pri-implant marginal bone levels (MBLs) changes, implant failures (IFs), complications, and prosthesis failures (PFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted through the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov to locate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SH to ST. Meta-analysis procedures were performed on the weighted mean difference (WMD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) of MBLs using Stata. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were included in this review. The WMD of MBLs when comparing SH to ST in both jaws up to 1-year follow-up was statistically significant preferring SH (WMD: -0.09 [CI: -0.12, -0.06], I2 : 67.0%). The efficacy of SH vs ST on SMD of MBLs was moderate (SMD: -0.43 [CI: -0.57, -0.28], I2 : 55.7%). There were no significant differences in IF (RR: 0.75 [0.44,1.27]) and PF (RR: 0.58 (0.22,1.581), and significantly higher biological complications (RR: 0.25 [0.15, 0.40]) for SH was observed compared to the ST in both jaws up to 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: SH and ST implants showed the comparable outcomes except biological complication preferring SH. Future systematic review and meta-analysis with longer and larger RCTs are required to confirm the present outcomes.