Clinical, radiographic and economic evaluation of short‐6‐mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in moderately atrophic maxillae: A 3‐year randomized clinical trial

Shi, Junyu; Lai, Yi-Rao; Qian, Shu‐Jiao; Qiao, Shuqing; Tonetti, Maurizio S.

doi:10.1111/jcpe.13444

Cited by 19 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After removing 710 duplicates, titles and abstracts of the remaining 1174 articles were screened. The full texts of nine potentially eligible articles were browsed; three studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for the final analysis [ 26 – 28 ]. Figure 1 describes the reasons why studies were removed from the review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This review included three RCTs [ 26 – 28 ], and Table 2 outlines their characteristics. The length of short implants ranged from 6.5 to 8 mm, and that of standard implants ranged from 10 to 16 mm.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The length of short implants ranged from 6.5 to 8 mm, and that of standard implants ranged from 10 to 16 mm. In the study by Shi et al, both the short and standard implant groups underwent OSFE [ 26 ], while in the other two studies, only the standard implant group underwent LSFE [ 27 , 28 ]. The follow-up periods of the included studies were 3, 5 and 2 years, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tang

Luo

et al. 2022

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of using short implants (≤ 8 mm) inserted with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted with sinus floor elevation (SFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae with insufficient residual bone height (RBH). Methods An electronic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1994 to July 2022, in combination with a manual search of references in relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical results between short and standard implant placement with SFE were included. The primary outcomes were implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL); the secondary outcome was complication rate. Results Three RCTs were included, totaling 138 short and 156 standard implants. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the short and standard implant groups in survival rate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.96–1.08, p = 0.570), MBL (MD = − 0.13, 95% CI − 0.32 to 0.07, p = 0.190) and complication rate (intra-surgical complication: RR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.46–2.83, p = 0.770; post-operative complication: RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.71–2.55, p = 0.370). Conclusions Using short implants (≤ 8 mm) combined with OSFE might be an alternative to standard implants (≥ 10 mm) with SFE when the RBH of the posterior maxilla is insufficient. Based on a short-term clinical observation, short implants with OSFE show good results in terms of survival rate, MBL, and complication incidence. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tang

Luo

et al. 2022

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The heterogeneity was considered high for the marginal bone loss (I 2 = 78% and I 2 = 74%), so funnel plot shows asymmetry. The main reason of the asymmetry encountered could be due to the difference in the sample size of the included studies Implant diameters, in the present research, ranged from 3.3 [42] to 6 mm [5]. Differences in implant diameter introduced heterogeneity among studies with respect to MBL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Short versus standard implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Most of the studies reported comparable survival rates of 8‐mm implants and longer implants (Nielsen et al, 2019). As for 6‐mm implant, several mid‐term data (3 to 5 years) revealed acceptable clinical results (Gulje et al, 2021; Naenni et al, 2018; Shi et al, 2021). It is suggested that time in function may influence the survival rate of short implants more than that of longer implants (Jung et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA)

Lai

Qian

et al. 2022

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:To evaluate the long-term survival of short implants and to investigate the association of the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) with the occurrence of biological complications. Material and Methods:This study was designed as a cohort study with a median follow-up of 10.0 years. Patients who had received 6-mm implants were reviewed and assigned into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups (Group L, M, and H) based on the IDRA tool. The implant survival, biological complications, soft tissue condition, hardware complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL) were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were performed for survival analysis.Results: A hundred and ten patients were included. The overall cumulative survival rate was 90.9% (L:100.0%, M: 93.3%, and H: 80.6%). A higher risk profile was significantly associated with a decreased implant survival (hazard ratio: 4.11, 95% CI: 1.17-14.36, p < .05). Higher risk profile (hazard ratio: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.32-5.25, p < .05) was a potential risk factor for biological complications. At follow-up, significant differences in bleeding index, modified plaque index, and peri-implant probing depth were found among groups (p < .01). No significant difference was found in MBL. Conclusion:Acceptable long-term clinical outcomes could be achieved after 10 years for short implants. Despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in MBL, patients with a high-risk profile of IDRA seem to be at greater risk of implant loss and biological complications.

show abstract

Clinical, radiographic and economic evaluation of short‐6‐mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in moderately atrophic maxillae: A 3‐year randomized clinical trial

Cited by 19 publications

References 20 publications

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Short versus standard implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Long‐term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About