Short versus standard implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta‑analysis
Metadatos
Afficher la notice complèteAuteur
Toledano Osorio, Manuel; Fernández Romero, Enrique; Vallecillo, Cristina; Toledano, Raquel; Toledano Osorio, María; Vallecillo Rivas, MartaEditorial
Springer
Materia
Short Implants Survival Bone Loss Review
Date
2022-09-07Referencia bibliográfica
Toledano, M... [et al.]. Short versus standard implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Invest (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04628-1]
Patrocinador
Spanish Government; European Commission PID2020-114694RB-I00 MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UERésumé
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.