Abstract
Statement of problem
Rehabilitation with wide-diameter reduced-length implants has become popular for patients
with minimal vertical bone. However, a consensus on the benefits of this approach
is lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence
of wide compared with regular diameter on the clinical performance of short (<10 mm)
and extrashort (≤6 mm) dental implants used for rehabilitations with single crowns,
fixed partial dentures, or both, in the posterior region.
Material and methods
A search in 6 databases was conducted to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
and nonrandomized controlled trials (N-RCTs). Five meta-analyses were performed, where
the risk ratio (RR) was evaluated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated, and the
risk of bias was determined from the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist.
Results
Fourteen articles were included, 272 wide- and 478 regular-diameter implants. One
study presented a low, 3 an unclear, and 11 a high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed
no statistical difference: implant survival, short dental implants in N-RCTs (up to
1 year - RR 1.01 [0.98; 1.03], 1 to 5 years - RR 1.01 [0.94; 1.08], more than 5 years
- RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.06]), extrashort dental implants in N-RCTs (RR 1.04 [0.90; 1.20]),
RCTs (RR 1.05 [0.88; 1.25]); implant success in N-RCTs (RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.05]); prosthesis
success in N-RCTs (RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.05]).
Conclusions
Short and extrashort dental implants with a wide and regular diameter appear to be
clinically appropriate options for implant-supported posterior restorations, with
high survival, success, and prosthesis success rates.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Dental implant length and diameter: a proposed classification scheme.J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 252-260
- Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region.J Clin Periodontol. 2014; 41: 191-213
- Are short dental implants (<10 mm) Effective? A Meta-Analysis on prospective clinical trials.J Periodontol. 2013; 84: 895-904
- A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 1119-1124
- Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review.Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 22: 69-80
- Influence of platform diameter in the reliability and failure mode of extra-short dental implants.J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018; 77: 470-474
- Short implants versus bone augmentation in combination with standard-length implants in posterior atrophic partially edentulous mandibles: systematic review and meta-analysis with the Bayesian approach.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 48: 90-96
- Long-Term Effectiveness of Extra-Short (≤ 6 mm) Dental Implants: a systematic review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 68-84
- 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.Implant Dent. 2019; 28: 590-602
- 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
- Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study.J Periodontol. 2006; 77: 1340-1347
- Influence of crown-to-implant ratio on stress around single short-wide implants: a photoelastic stress analysis.J Prosthodont. 2015; 24: 52-56
- Effects of prosthetic material and framework design on stress distribution in dental implants and peripheral bone: a Three-Dimensional finite element analysis.Med Sci Monit. 2018; 24: 4279-4287
- In vitro fatigue tests and in silico finite element analysis of dental implants with different fixture/abutment joint types using computer-aided design models.J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 24-30
- Evaluation of different heights of prosthetic crowns supported by an ultra-short implant using three-dimensional finite element analysis.Int J Prosthodont. 2020; 33: 81-90
- Survival of short and ultra-short locking-taper implants supporting single crowns in the posterior mandible: a 3-year retrospective study.J Oral Implantol. 2020; 46: 396-406
- Retrospective study of short and extra-short implants placed in posterior regions: influence of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone loss.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: 1-9
- Split-Mouth comparison of splinted and nonsplinted prostheses on short implants: 3-year results.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 1135-1141
- Survival analysis of wide dental implant: systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1251-1264
- Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospective studies.J Periodontol. 2013; 84: 1783-1791
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.Syst Rev. 2021; 10: 89
- Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice.Appl Nurs Res. 2002; 15: 197-198
- The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 1986; 1: 11-25
- Sinus floor elevation via an osteotome technique without biomaterials.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 1103
- A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique.Compendium. 1994; 15: 152
- JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide2020
- Common Mistakes In Meta-Analysis and How To Avoid Them.1st ed. Biostat, New Jersey2019: 13-41
- Methods and recommendations for evaluating and reporting a new diagnostic test.Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012; 31: 2111-2116
- How to GRADE the quality of the evidence.Cochrane Consum Commun Gr. 2016; (Version 3): 1-24
- Short (8-mm) locking-taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: a prospective clinical study with 1-to 10-years of follow-up.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 933-940
- Comparative study of immediate loading on short dental implants and conventional dental implants in the posterior mandible: a randomized clinical trial.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 141-149
- A Prospective Clinical Study to Evaluate Early Success of Short Implants.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 170-177
- Short threaded implants with an oxidized surface to restore posterior teeth: 1- to 3-year results of a prospective study.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26: 393-403
- Short implants with oxidized surface in posterior areas of atrophic jaws: 3- to 5-year results of a multicenter study.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: 442-452
- Early loading of single crowns supported by 6-mm-long implants with a moderately rough surface: a prospective 2-year follow-up cohort study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 937-943
- 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: 471-477
- 6-mm-long implants loaded with fiber-reinforced composite resin-bonded fixed prostheses (FRCRBFDPs). A 5-year prospective study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1478-1483
- Long-term follow-up of single crowns supported by short, moderately rough implants-A prospective 10-year cohort study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 1212-1219
- Brånemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15: 646-653
- Long-Term evaluation of 282 implants in maxillary and mandibular molar positions: a prospective study.J Periodontol. 1999; 70: 896-901
- Short porous implants in the posterior maxilla: a 3-year report of a prospective study.Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2009; 29: 23-29
- Simplifying management of the posterior maxilla using short, porous-surfaced dental implants and simultaneous indirect sinus elevation.Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000; 20: 476-485
- Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.BMJ. 1997; 315: 629-634
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1.Wiley, Chichester2020: 1-694
- How to interpret a meta-analysis and judge its value as a guide for clinical practice.Acta Orthop. 2007; 78: 598-609
- Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies.Biochem medica. 2021; 31: 27-53
- Success Criteria in Implant Dentistry.J Dent Res. 2012; 91: 242-248
- Dental implant design-effect on bone remodeling.J Biomed Mater Res. 1991; 25: 467-483
- De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14: 251-262
- Effect of insertion torque on titanium implant osseointegration: an animal experimental study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 191-196
- Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation.Interv Med Appl Sci. 2013; 5: 162-167
Article info
Publication history
Published online: February 23, 2023
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
Funding: Supported in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
