Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Oct;22(5):552-566.
doi: 10.1111/cid.12946. Epub 2020 Sep 9.

Are <7-mm long implants in native bone as effective as longer implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Giovanna Iezzi  1 , Vittoria Perrotti  1 , Pietro Felice  2 , Carlo Barausse  2 , Adriano Piattelli  1   3   4 , Massimo Del Fabbro  5   6
Affiliations
Free article
Meta-Analysis

Are <7-mm long implants in native bone as effective as longer implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Giovanna Iezzi et al. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020 Oct.
Free article

Abstract

Purpose: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of <7 mm short (SH) implants inserted in native bone vs longer (ST) implants placed in vertically augmented partially edentulous posterior jaws. A further aim was to evaluate if the residual bone dimension plays a role in the outcomes of SH and extra-SH implants.

Materials and methods: This review was registered with PROSPERO. An electronic literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 1-year follow-up, comparing fixed prostheses supported by SH vs ST implants in augmented sites were included. Marginal bone level (MBL) changes, implant survival rate, and complications were evaluated through a meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed dividing the SH implants according to length at each follow-up (1-, 3-, 5-year of function).

Results: Twenty-five articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, featuring a total of 650 SH implants placed in 415 patients and 685 ST implants placed in 403 patients. There was a trend for a significantly lower MBL associated with SH implants respect to ST implants at each follow-up, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in failure rates between SH and ST implants, for any SH length considered and at any follow-up. There was evidence for a lower incidence of complications in favor of SH implants at both 1-year (P < .0001) and 3-year follow-up (P = .01), while at 5-year follow-up there was no evidence of a difference between SH and ST groups (P = .30).

Conclusion: SH implants supporting partial fixed rehabilitations represent a valuable alternative to augmentation procedures in the medium term. While the performance of implants at least 5-mm long is well documented, more studies with at least 5-year follow-up are needed to confirm the promising outcomes observed with <5 mm-long fixtures.

Keywords: complications; dental implants; extra-short implants; marginal bone loss; short implants; survival rate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

REFERENCES

    1. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003;23(4):313-323.
    1. Chappuis V, Araújo MG, Buser D. Clinical relevance of dimensional bone and soft tissue alterations post-extraction in esthetic sites. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):73-83.
    1. Ravida A, Wang IC, Sammartino G, et al. Prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla, short (≤6 mm) or long (≥10 mm) dental implants? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis: Naples consensus report working group a. Implant Dent. 2019;28(6):590-602.
    1. Yan Q, Wu X, Su M, Hua F, Shi B. Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e029826.
    1. Ravidà AMJ, Alassadi M, Saleh MH, Askar H, Wang HL. Impact of implant length on survival of rough-surface implants in nonaugmented posterior areas: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:1359-1369.

Substances