Objectives: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyse the clinical performance of short compared to longer implants inserted in sites without the need for bone augmentation. Methods: The protocol of the present PRISMA-driven meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021264781). Electronic and manual searches were performed up to January 2022. All Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing short (<= 6 mm) to longer (>= 8.5 mm) implants placed in non-atrophic and non-augmented sites were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RoB 2) and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A meta-analysis was performed on implant survival rate, marginal bone level change (MBLc), and technical and biological complications at the available follow-up time points. The power of the meta-analytic findings was determined by trial sequential analysis (TSA). Results: From 1485 initial records, 13 articles were finally included. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between short and long implant at any follow-up (moderate quality of evidence). Significantly more bone loss for long implants at 1 and 5 years from implant placement and more technical complications with short implants at 10 years were found. No other significant inter-group differences in terms of MBLc and biological complications were detected. Conclusions: Moderate evidence exists suggesting that short implants perform as well as longer ones in the rehabilitation of edentulous sites without the need for bone augmentation. Further long-term, well-designed RCTs, however, are still needed to provide specific evidence-based clinical recommendations for an extended use of short implants in non-atrophic sites.

Short versus Longer Implants in Sites without the Need for Bone Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials / L. Guida, E. Bressan, G. Cecoro, A.D. Volpe, M. Del Fabbro, M. Annunziata. - In: MATERIALS. - ISSN 1996-1944. - 15:9(2022 Apr 26), pp. 3138.1-3138.21. [10.3390/ma15093138]

Short versus Longer Implants in Sites without the Need for Bone Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

M. Del Fabbro
Penultimo
;
2022

Abstract

Objectives: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyse the clinical performance of short compared to longer implants inserted in sites without the need for bone augmentation. Methods: The protocol of the present PRISMA-driven meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021264781). Electronic and manual searches were performed up to January 2022. All Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing short (<= 6 mm) to longer (>= 8.5 mm) implants placed in non-atrophic and non-augmented sites were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RoB 2) and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A meta-analysis was performed on implant survival rate, marginal bone level change (MBLc), and technical and biological complications at the available follow-up time points. The power of the meta-analytic findings was determined by trial sequential analysis (TSA). Results: From 1485 initial records, 13 articles were finally included. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between short and long implant at any follow-up (moderate quality of evidence). Significantly more bone loss for long implants at 1 and 5 years from implant placement and more technical complications with short implants at 10 years were found. No other significant inter-group differences in terms of MBLc and biological complications were detected. Conclusions: Moderate evidence exists suggesting that short implants perform as well as longer ones in the rehabilitation of edentulous sites without the need for bone augmentation. Further long-term, well-designed RCTs, however, are still needed to provide specific evidence-based clinical recommendations for an extended use of short implants in non-atrophic sites.
implant survival rate; meta-analysis; non-atrophic sites; short implants; systematic review
Settore MED/28 - Malattie Odontostomatologiche
Settore MED/50 - Scienze Tecniche Mediche Applicate
26-apr-2022
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Materials 2022-Guida Short in siti non atrofici.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 3.49 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.49 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/935876
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact