4.4 Review

Short Implants (5 to 8 mm) Versus Longer Implants (>8 mm) with Sinus Lifting in Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs

Journal

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 207-215

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12432

Keywords

atrophic maxilla; dental implant; meta-analysis; short implant

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81272964, 81472529]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2042015kf0075]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveThe specific purposes of this study were (1) to undertake a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis based only on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare the rates of survival and complications of short implants to those of long implants; (2) to compare the surgical time and cost of short implants to those of long implants. MethodsRCTs were identified from the major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) using the keywords dental implant, short implant and atrophic maxilla, and a quantitative meta-analysis was conducted. The survival rate of implants and complications were the primary outcome measures, and other parameters assessed included costs and surgical time. ResultsSeven RCTs that met the inclusion criteria included 554 implants (265 implants in the short implant group). There was no significant difference in survival rate between two groups (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: [0.97, 1.03]; p=.96; seven trials, 554 participants). Compared with long implant group, the short implant group had a lower complications and the effect measure was significant (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: [0.37, 0.90]; p=.02; seven trials, 554 participants). ConclusionThis systematic review showed that no difference between the survival rates of short implants (5-8 mm) and long implants (>8 mm); complications in short implants are lower than that in long implants. However, further studies are required to substantiate our findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available