Comparing short dental implant and standard dental implant in terms of marginal bone level changes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

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 th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2019-08, Vol.21 (4), p.796-812
Main Authors: Bitaraf, Tahereh, Keshtkar, Abbasali, Rokn, Amir Reza, Monzavi, Abbas, Geramy, Allahyar, Hashemi, Kazem
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical trials
Complications
dental arch
Dental Implantation, Endosseous
Dental Implants
Dental materials
Dental prosthetics
Dental Restoration Failure
Dentistry
Humans
Jaw, Edentulous
Meta-analysis
postoperative complications/etiology
Prostheses
Randomization
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Reviews
Statistical analysis
Surgical implants
Systematic review
Transplants & implants
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1523-0899
1708-8208
DOI:10.1111/cid.12774