Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Survival rates of short dental implants (≤6 mm) compared with implants longer than 6 mm in posterior jaw areas: A meta‐analysis

2018; Wiley; Volume: 29; Issue: S16 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/clr.13289

1600-0501

Panos Papaspyridakos, André De Souza, Konstantinos Vazouras, Hadi Gholami, Sarah Pagni, Hans‐Peter Weber,

Bone Tissue Engineering Materials

Abstract Purpose To systematically review randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) reporting on the long‐term survival and failure rates, as well as the complications of short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants (>6 mm) in posterior jaw areas. Materials and Methods Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify studies, specifically RCTs, reporting on short dental implants (≤6 mm) and their survival and complication rates compared with implants longer than 6 mm. Secondary outcomes analyzed were marginal bone loss and prosthesis survival rates. Results Ten RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria and featured a total of 637 short (≤6 mm) implants placed in 392 patients, while 653 standard implants (>6 mm) were inserted in 383 patients. The short implant survival rate ranged from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow‐up from 1 to 5 years. The risk ratio (RR) for short implant failure compared to standard implants was 1.29 (95% CI: 0.67, 2.50, p = 0.45), demonstrating that overall, short implants presented higher risk of failure compared to longer implants. The heterogeneity test did not reach statistical significance ( p = 0.67), suggesting low between‐study heterogeneity. The prosthesis survival rates from the short implant groups ranged from 90% to 100% and from 95% to 100% for longer implant groups, respectively. Conclusion Short implants (≤6 mm) were found to have higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates compared to longer implants (>6 mm) after periods of 1–5 years in function. The mean survival rate was 96% (range: 86.7%–100%) for short implants, and 98% (range 95%–100%) for longer implants. Based on the quantity and quality of the evidence provided by 10 RCTs, short implants with ≤6 mm length should be carefully selected because they may present a greater risk for failure compared to implants longer than 6 mm.