Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Survival of surface-modified short versus long implants in complete or partially edentulous patients with a follow-up of 1 year or more: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Received : 2020.11.11
  • Accepted : 2021.11.16
  • Published : 2022.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Short implants are a potential alternative to long implants for use with bone augmentation in atrophic jaws. This meta-analysis investigated the survival rate and marginal bone level (MBL) of surface-modified short vs. long implants. Methods: Electronic and manual searches were performed for articles published between January 2010 and June 2021. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surface-modified short and long implants that reported the survival rate with at least 1 year of follow-up were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and the risk of bias and quality of evidence were evaluated. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed regarding survival rate and MBL. Results: The failure rates of surface-modified short and long implants differed significantly (risk ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46, 3.57; P<0.000). Long implants exhibited a higher survival rate than short implants (mean follow-up, 1-10 years). A significant difference was observed in mean MBL (mean difference=-0.43, 95% CI, -0.63, -0.23; P<0.000), favoring the short implants. Regarding the impact of surface treatment in short and long implants, for hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched (P=0.020) and titanium oxide fluoride-modified (P=0.050) surfaces, the survival rate differed significantly between short and long implants. The MBL differences for novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated, hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched, and dual acid-etched with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystal surfaces (P=0.050, P=0.020, and P<0.000, respectively) differed significantly for short vs. long implants. Conclusions: Short surface-modified implants are a potential alternative to longer implants in atrophic ridges. Long fluoride-modified and hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched implants have higher survival rates than short implants. Short implants with novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surfaces, hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surfaces, and dual acid-etched surfaces with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals showed less marginal bone loss than longer implants. Due to high heterogeneity, the MBL results should be interpreted cautiously, and better-designed RCTs should be assessed in the future.

Keywords

References

  1. Romeo E, Bivio A, Mosca D, Scanferla M, Ghisolfi M, Storelli S. The use of short dental implants in clinical practice: literature review. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:23-31.
  2. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270-6.
  3. Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Linden U, Bergstrom C, et al. Survival of the Branemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:639-45.
  4. Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:856-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01750.x
  5. Karthikeyan I, Desai SR, Singh R. Short implants: a systematic review. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:302-12. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.100901
  6. Morand M, Irinakis T. The challenge of implant therapy in the posterior maxilla: providing a rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 2007;33:257-66. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2007)33[257:TCOITI]2.0.CO;2
  7. Nisand D, Renouard F. Short implant in limited bone volume. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:72-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12053
  8. Novaes AB Jr, de Souza SL, de Barros RR, Pereira KK, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Influence of implant surfaces on osseointegration. Braz Dent J 2010;21:471-81. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402010000600001
  9. Jemat A, Ghazali MJ, Razali M, Otsuka Y. Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015:791725.
  10. Deporter D. Short dental implants: what works and what doesn't? A literature interpretation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:457-64. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.1304
  11. Higgins JP, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). London: Cochrane, 2020.
  12. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
  13. Pistilli R, Felice P, Piattelli M, Gessaroli M, Soardi E, Barausse C, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants with a novel nanostructured calciumincorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2013;6:343-57.
  14. Gulje F, Abrahamsson I, Chen S, Stanford C, Zadeh H, Palmer R. Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1325-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12001
  15. Romeo E, Storelli S, Casano G, Scanferla M, Botticelli D. Six-mm versus 10-mm long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior edentulous jaws: a 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014;7:371-81.
  16. Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Esposito M. Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: a randomised controlled trial with 5-year after loading followup. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014;7:359-69.
  17. Esposito M, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Felice P. Three-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014;7:383-95.
  18. Rossi F, Botticelli D, Cesaretti G, De Santis E, Storelli S, Lang NP. Use of short implants (6 mm) in a single-tooth replacement: a 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:458-64.
  19. Schincaglia GP, Thoma DS, Haas R, Tutak M, Garcia A, Taylor TD, et al. Randomized controlled multicenter study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 2: clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year of loading. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42:1042-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12465
  20. Bechara S, Kubilius R, Veronesi G, Pires JT, Shibli JA, Mangano FG. Short (6-mm) dental implants versus sinus floor elevation and placement of longer (≥10-mm) dental implants: a randomized controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1097-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12923
  21. Nedir R, Nurdin N, Abi Najm S, El Hage M, Bischof M. Short implants placed with or without grafting into atrophic sinuses: the 5-year results of a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:877-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12893
  22. Sahrmann P, Naenni N, Jung RE, Held U, Truninger T, Hammerle CH, et al. Success of 6-mm implants with single-tooth restorations: a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2016;95:623-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516633432
  23. Pohl V, Thoma DS, Sporniak-Tutak K, Garcia-Garcia A, Taylor TD, Haas R, et al. Short dental implants (6 mm) versus long dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 3-year results from a multicentre, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2017;44:438-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12694
  24. Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: result at 8 years after loading from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2018;11:385-95.
  25. Gastaldi G, Felice P, Pistilli V, Barausse C, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. 3-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2018;11:49-61.
  26. Naenni N, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Attin T, Wiedemeier DB, Sapata V, et al. Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2018;97:887-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034518758036
  27. Storelli S, Abba A, Scanferla M, Botticelli D, Romeo E. 6 mm vs 10 mm-long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior jaws: a 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2018;11:283-92.
  28. Thoma DS, Haas R, Sporniak-Tutak K, Garcia A, Taylor TD, Hammerle CH. Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 5-year data. J Clin Periodontol 2018;45:1465-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13025
  29. Zadeh HH, Gulje F, Palmer PJ, Abrahamsson I, Chen S, Mahallati R, et al. Marginal bone level and survival of short and standard-length implants after 3 years: an open multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:894-906. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13341
  30. Shah SN, Chung J, Kim DM, Machtei EE. Can extra-short dental implants serve as alternatives to bone augmentation? A preliminary longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial. Quintessence Int 2018;49:635-43.
  31. Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Five-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 2019;12:25-37.
  32. Shi JY, Li Y, Qiao SC, Gu YX, Xiong YY, Lai HC. Short versus longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation for moderately atrophic posterior maxillae: a 1-year randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46:855-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13147
  33. Guida L, Annunziata M, Esposito U, Sirignano M, Torrisi P, Cecchinato D. 6-mm-short and 11-mm-long implants compared in the full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: a 3-year multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31:64-73.
  34. Hadzik J, Kubasiewicz-Ross P, Nawrot-Hadzik I, Gedrange T, Pitulaj A, Dominiak M. Short (6 mm) and regular dental implants in the posterior maxilla-7-years follow-up study. J Clin Med 2021;10:940.
  35. Esposito M, Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Grandi G, Simion M. Immediately loaded machined versus rough surface dental implants in edentulous jaws: One-year postloading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2015;8:387-96.
  36. Glibert M, Vervaeke S, Jacquet W, Vermeersch K, Ostman PO, De Bruyn H. A randomized controlled clinical trial to assess crestal bone remodeling of four different implant designs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:455-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12604
  37. Yu H, Wang X, Qiu L. Outcomes of 6.5-mm hydrophilic implants and long implants placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in the atrophic posterior maxilla: a prospective randomized controlled clinical comparison. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:111-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12439
  38. Shi JY, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Zhuang LF, Zhang XM, Lai HC. Clinical evaluation of short 6-mm implants alone, short 8-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation and standard 10-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in posterior maxillae: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:324.
  39. Hadzik J, Krawiec M, Kubasiewicz-Ross P, Prylinska-Czyzewska A, Gedrange T, Dominiak M. Short implants and conventional implants in limited height alveolar ridge. Med Sci Monit 2018;24:5645-52. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.910404
  40. Lemos CA, Ferro-Alves ML, Okamoto R, Mendonca MR, Pellizzer EP. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;47:8-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005
  41. Altaib FH, Alqutaibi AY, Al-Fahd A, Eid S. Short dental implant as alternative to long implant with bone augmentation of the atrophic posterior ridge: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Quintessence Int 2019;50:636-50.
  42. Lin ZZ, Jiao YQ, Ye ZY, Wang GG, Ding X. The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Implant Dent 2021;7:41.
  43. Rossi F, Lang NP, Ricci E, Ferraioli L, Marchetti C, Botticelli D. Early loading of 6-mm-short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns--a prospective 5-year cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:471-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12409
  44. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (< 10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:191-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12180
  45. Mezzomo LA, Miller R, Triches D, Alonso F, Shinkai RS. Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:191-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12180
  46. Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, Beck-Broichsitter B, Jung O, Precht C, et al. Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:6285620.