Andrea Ravidà1, I-Ching Wang1, Gilberto Sammartino2, Shayan Barootchi1, Mustafa Tattan3, Giuseppe Troiano4, Luigi Laino5, Gaetano Marenzi2, Ugo Covani6, Hom-Lay Wang7. 1. Graduate Student, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Professor, Division of Oral Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University "Federico II," Naples, Italy. 3. PhD Student, Department of Periodontics, Iowa Institute for Oral Health Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. 4. Post Doc, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy. 5. Researcher Type B, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical- Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Naples, Italy. 6. Chairman, Tuscan Stomatologic Institute, Versilia General Hospital, Lido di Camaiore, Italy. 7. Program Director, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of ≤6-mm implants with those of ≥10-mm implants placed after both lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane, a literature search for randomized controlled trials was performed. All the outcome variables were evaluated through a quantitative meta-analysis, and the influence of other clinical covariates were determined with a metaregression. For the survival outcomes, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to adjust results for type I and II errors and to analyze the power of the available evidence. RESULTS: After full-text reading, 12 studies were included in the analyses. No statistically significant difference was found after 3 years between the 2 study groups (P = 0.36). Short implants displayed fewer biological complications (P = 0.05), less marginal bone loss (MBL) from implant placement (P < 0.01), and reduced surgical time and treatment cost. However, long implants showed a statistically significant smaller number of prosthetic complications (P = 0.03). TSA confirmed the results of the meta-analysis, revealing that additional studies are needed due to low statistical power of the available evidence. CONCLUSION: The placement of short implants is a predictable option in treating patients with maxillary atrophy up to a 3-year follow-up. Studies with a longer observational period are needed to study the long-term performance of these implants.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of ≤6-mm implants with those of ≥10-mm implants placed after both lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane, a literature search for randomized controlled trials was performed. All the outcome variables were evaluated through a quantitative meta-analysis, and the influence of other clinical covariates were determined with a metaregression. For the survival outcomes, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to adjust results for type I and II errors and to analyze the power of the available evidence. RESULTS: After full-text reading, 12 studies were included in the analyses. No statistically significant difference was found after 3 years between the 2 study groups (P = 0.36). Short implants displayed fewer biological complications (P = 0.05), less marginal bone loss (MBL) from implant placement (P < 0.01), and reduced surgical time and treatment cost. However, long implants showed a statistically significant smaller number of prosthetic complications (P = 0.03). TSA confirmed the results of the meta-analysis, revealing that additional studies are needed due to low statistical power of the available evidence. CONCLUSION: The placement of short implants is a predictable option in treating patients with maxillary atrophy up to a 3-year follow-up. Studies with a longer observational period are needed to study the long-term performance of these implants.