Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Priscila Uehara, Victor Haruo Matsubara, Fernando Igai, Newton Sesma, Marcio Mukai, Mauricio G. Araujo

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

12 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Aim:
The aim of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate and the marginal bone loss between short implants (≤7 mm)
placed in the atrophic area and longer implants placed in the augmented bone area of posterior regions of maxillaries.
Methods:
Electronic search using three databases was performed up to May 2017 to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) assessing
short implants survival with a minimal follow-up of 12 months post-loading. For the meta-analysis, a Risk Difference (RD) with the
95% Confidence Interval (CI) was used to pool the results of implant failure rate for each treatment group. For the marginal bone
changes, Mean Differences (MD) with 95% CI were calculated.
Results:
Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, being included in qualitative and quantitative analyses. The RD
between the short implant group and the control group was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.00), I2=0 and Chi2=3.14, indicating a favorable
survival rate for short implant, but with no statistical significance (p=0.09).
Discussion:
For marginal bone loss, the mean difference was -0,13 (95%CI: -0.22 to -0.05), favoring the test group with statistical significance
(p=0.002). The studies showed more heterogeneity for bone loss compared to survival rate. Short and longer implants showed similar
survival rates after one year of loading, however the marginal bone loss around short implants was lower than in longer implants
sites.
Conclusion:
Placement of implants ≤7 mm of length was found to be a predictable alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior regions,
avoiding all the disadvantages intrinsic to bone augmentation procedures.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)354-365
Number of pages11
JournalThe Open Dentistry Journal
Volume12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 Apr 2018

Fingerprint

Dental Implants
Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Bone and Bones
Confidence Intervals
Rehabilitation
Databases
Control Groups

Cite this

Uehara, Priscila ; Haruo Matsubara, Victor ; Igai, Fernando ; Sesma, Newton ; Mukai, Marcio ; Araujo, Mauricio G. / Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. In: The Open Dentistry Journal. 2018 ; Vol. 12. pp. 354-365.
@article{171f4ddb227d448c82de79fbdac1aa21,
title = "Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials",
abstract = "Aim:The aim of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate and the marginal bone loss between short implants (≤7 mm)placed in the atrophic area and longer implants placed in the augmented bone area of posterior regions of maxillaries.Methods:Electronic search using three databases was performed up to May 2017 to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) assessingshort implants survival with a minimal follow-up of 12 months post-loading. For the meta-analysis, a Risk Difference (RD) with the95{\%} Confidence Interval (CI) was used to pool the results of implant failure rate for each treatment group. For the marginal bonechanges, Mean Differences (MD) with 95{\%} CI were calculated.Results:Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, being included in qualitative and quantitative analyses. The RDbetween the short implant group and the control group was -0.02 (95{\%} CI: -0.04 to 0.00), I2=0 and Chi2=3.14, indicating a favorablesurvival rate for short implant, but with no statistical significance (p=0.09).Discussion:For marginal bone loss, the mean difference was -0,13 (95{\%}CI: -0.22 to -0.05), favoring the test group with statistical significance(p=0.002). The studies showed more heterogeneity for bone loss compared to survival rate. Short and longer implants showed similarsurvival rates after one year of loading, however the marginal bone loss around short implants was lower than in longer implantssites.Conclusion:Placement of implants ≤7 mm of length was found to be a predictable alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior regions,avoiding all the disadvantages intrinsic to bone augmentation procedures.",
author = "Priscila Uehara and {Haruo Matsubara}, Victor and Fernando Igai and Newton Sesma and Marcio Mukai and Araujo, {Mauricio G.}",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "23",
doi = "10.2174/1874210601812010354",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "354--365",
journal = "The Open Dentistry Journal",
issn = "1874-2106",
publisher = "BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD",

}

Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. / Uehara, Priscila ; Haruo Matsubara, Victor; Igai, Fernando ; Sesma, Newton; Mukai, Marcio ; Araujo, Mauricio G.

In: The Open Dentistry Journal, Vol. 12, 23.04.2018, p. 354-365.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

AU - Uehara, Priscila

AU - Haruo Matsubara, Victor

AU - Igai, Fernando

AU - Sesma, Newton

AU - Mukai, Marcio

AU - Araujo, Mauricio G.

PY - 2018/4/23

Y1 - 2018/4/23

N2 - Aim:The aim of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate and the marginal bone loss between short implants (≤7 mm)placed in the atrophic area and longer implants placed in the augmented bone area of posterior regions of maxillaries.Methods:Electronic search using three databases was performed up to May 2017 to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) assessingshort implants survival with a minimal follow-up of 12 months post-loading. For the meta-analysis, a Risk Difference (RD) with the95% Confidence Interval (CI) was used to pool the results of implant failure rate for each treatment group. For the marginal bonechanges, Mean Differences (MD) with 95% CI were calculated.Results:Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, being included in qualitative and quantitative analyses. The RDbetween the short implant group and the control group was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.00), I2=0 and Chi2=3.14, indicating a favorablesurvival rate for short implant, but with no statistical significance (p=0.09).Discussion:For marginal bone loss, the mean difference was -0,13 (95%CI: -0.22 to -0.05), favoring the test group with statistical significance(p=0.002). The studies showed more heterogeneity for bone loss compared to survival rate. Short and longer implants showed similarsurvival rates after one year of loading, however the marginal bone loss around short implants was lower than in longer implantssites.Conclusion:Placement of implants ≤7 mm of length was found to be a predictable alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior regions,avoiding all the disadvantages intrinsic to bone augmentation procedures.

AB - Aim:The aim of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate and the marginal bone loss between short implants (≤7 mm)placed in the atrophic area and longer implants placed in the augmented bone area of posterior regions of maxillaries.Methods:Electronic search using three databases was performed up to May 2017 to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) assessingshort implants survival with a minimal follow-up of 12 months post-loading. For the meta-analysis, a Risk Difference (RD) with the95% Confidence Interval (CI) was used to pool the results of implant failure rate for each treatment group. For the marginal bonechanges, Mean Differences (MD) with 95% CI were calculated.Results:Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, being included in qualitative and quantitative analyses. The RDbetween the short implant group and the control group was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.00), I2=0 and Chi2=3.14, indicating a favorablesurvival rate for short implant, but with no statistical significance (p=0.09).Discussion:For marginal bone loss, the mean difference was -0,13 (95%CI: -0.22 to -0.05), favoring the test group with statistical significance(p=0.002). The studies showed more heterogeneity for bone loss compared to survival rate. Short and longer implants showed similarsurvival rates after one year of loading, however the marginal bone loss around short implants was lower than in longer implantssites.Conclusion:Placement of implants ≤7 mm of length was found to be a predictable alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior regions,avoiding all the disadvantages intrinsic to bone augmentation procedures.

U2 - 10.2174/1874210601812010354

DO - 10.2174/1874210601812010354

M3 - Review article

VL - 12

SP - 354

EP - 365

JO - The Open Dentistry Journal

JF - The Open Dentistry Journal

SN - 1874-2106

ER -