Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2007340367

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  

Medikeri, Raghavendra Shrishail (Department of Periodontology, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital)
Pereira, Marisca Austin (Department of Periodontology, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital)
Waingade, Manjushri (Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital)
Navale, Shwetambari (Department of Periodontology, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital)
Publication Information
Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science / v.52, no.4, 2022 , pp. 261-281 More about this Journal
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
Dental implants; Marginal bone loss; Short dental implant; Surface treated; Survival;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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.
2 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.   DOI
3 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.   DOI
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.   DOI
7 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.
8 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.   DOI
9 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.   DOI
10 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.
11 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.   DOI
12 Nisand D, Renouard F. Short implant in limited bone volume. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:72-96.   DOI
13 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.
14 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.
15 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.   DOI
16 Deporter D. Short dental implants: what works and what doesn't? A literature interpretation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:457-64.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 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.
19 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.
20 Karthikeyan I, Desai SR, Singh R. Short implants: a systematic review. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:302-12.   DOI
21 Jemat A, Ghazali MJ, Razali M, Otsuka Y. Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015:791725.
22 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.   DOI
23 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.   DOI
24 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.   DOI
25 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.   DOI
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.   DOI
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.   DOI
30 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.
31 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.   DOI
32 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.   DOI
33 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.
34 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.   DOI
35 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.
36 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.
37 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.
38 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.   DOI
39 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.
40 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.
41 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.   DOI
42 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.   DOI
43 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.
44 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.
45 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.
46 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.   DOI