BACKGROUND: Short implants are proposed as a less invasive alternative with fewer complications than standard implants in combination with sinus lift. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to state the efficacy of placing short implants (≤ 6 mm) compared to standard-length implants (≥ 8 mm) performing sinus lift techniques in patients with edentulous posterior atrophic jaws. Efficacy will be evaluated through analyzing implant survival (IS) and maintenance of peri-implant bone (MBL). METHODS: Screening process was done using the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE by PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Oral Health, and Web of Science (WOS). The articles included were randomized controlled trials. Risk of bias was evaluated according to The Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Weighted means were calculated. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I2). A random-effects model was applied. Secondary outcomes such as surgical time, patient satisfaction, mucositis and peri-implantitis, pain, and swelling were analyzed. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (597 patients and 901 implants) were evaluated. IS was 1.02 risk ratio, ranging from 1.00 to 1.05 (CI 95%) (p = 0.09), suggesting that IS was similar when both techniques were used. MBL was higher in patients with standard-length implants plus sinus lift elevation (p = 0.03). MBL was 0.11 (0.01-0.20) mm (p = 0.03) and 0.23 (0.07-0.39) mm (p = 0.005) before and after 1 year of follow-up, respectively, indicating that the marginal bone loss is greater for standard-length implants. DISCUSSION: Within the limitations of the present study, as relatively small sample size, short dental implants can be used as an alternative to standard-length implants plus sinus elevation in cases of atrophic posterior maxilla. Higher MBL was observed in the groups where standard-length implants were used, but implant survival was similar in both groups. Moreover, with short implants, it was observed a reduced postoperative discomfort, minimal invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced costs. CLINICAL CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The low MBL promoted by short implants does contribute to a paradigm shift from sinus grafting with long implants to short implants. Further high-quality long-term studies are required to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND: Short implants are proposed as a less invasive alternative with fewer complications than standard implants in combination with sinus lift. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to state the efficacy of placing short implants (≤ 6 mm) compared to standard-length implants (≥ 8 mm) performing sinus lift techniques in patients with edentulous posterior atrophic jaws. Efficacy will be evaluated through analyzing implant survival (IS) and maintenance of peri-implant bone (MBL). METHODS: Screening process was done using the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE by PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Oral Health, and Web of Science (WOS). The articles included were randomized controlled trials. Risk of bias was evaluated according to The Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Weighted means were calculated. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I2). A random-effects model was applied. Secondary outcomes such as surgical time, patient satisfaction, mucositis and peri-implantitis, pain, and swelling were analyzed. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (597 patients and 901 implants) were evaluated. IS was 1.02 risk ratio, ranging from 1.00 to 1.05 (CI 95%) (p = 0.09), suggesting that IS was similar when both techniques were used. MBL was higher in patients with standard-length implants plus sinus lift elevation (p = 0.03). MBL was 0.11 (0.01-0.20) mm (p = 0.03) and 0.23 (0.07-0.39) mm (p = 0.005) before and after 1 year of follow-up, respectively, indicating that the marginal bone loss is greater for standard-length implants. DISCUSSION: Within the limitations of the present study, as relatively small sample size, short dental implants can be used as an alternative to standard-length implants plus sinus elevation in cases of atrophic posterior maxilla. Higher MBL was observed in the groups where standard-length implants were used, but implant survival was similar in both groups. Moreover, with short implants, it was observed a reduced postoperative discomfort, minimal invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced costs. CLINICAL CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The low MBL promoted by short implants does contribute to a paradigm shift from sinus grafting with long implants to short implants. Further high-quality long-term studies are required to confirm these findings.
Authors: Souheil Bechara; Ricardas Kubilius; Giovanni Veronesi; Jefferson T Pires; Jamil A Shibli; Francesco G Mangano Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Giorgio Gastaldi; Pietro Felice; Roberto Pistilli; Carlo Barausse; Anna Trullenque-Eriksson; Marco Esposito Journal: Eur J Oral Implantol Date: 2017 Impact factor: 3.123
Authors: Gian Pietro Schincaglia; Daniel S Thoma; Robert Haas; Marcin Tutak; Abel Garcia; Thomas D Taylor; Christoph H F Hämmerle Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Ho-Yan Duong; Andrea Roccuzzo; Alexandra Stähli; Giovanni E Salvi; Niklaus P Lang; Anton Sculean Journal: Periodontol 2000 Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 12.239