The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Abstract Background Currently, insufficient bone volume always occurs in the posterior maxilla which makes implantation difficult. Short implants combined with transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) may be an option to address insufficient bone volume. Purpose The clinical performance of short implants combined with TSFE was compared with that of conventional implants combined with TSFE according to the survival rate. Method In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and manual searching. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies. The quality assessment was performed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. The odds ratio (OR) with its confidence interval (CI) was considered the essential outcome for estimating the effect of short implants combined with TSFE. Results The registration number is INPLASY202050092. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1 cohort study and 10 cross-sectional studies. With respect to the 1-year survival rate, no significant effect was observed between short implants (length ≤ 8 mm) and conventional implants combined with TSFE (I2=0%, OR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.55-1.96). Similarly, no difference was seen between the two groups regarding the survival rate during the healing period (I2=10%, OR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.28-1.97) and 3-year loading (OR=1.76, 95% CI: 0.65-4.74). Conclusion There was no evidence that the survival rate of short implants combined with TSFE was lower or higher than that of conventional implants combined with TSFE when the residual bone height was poor and the implant protrusion length of short implants was less than or similar to conventional implants. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of random controlled trials in our meta-analysis.

Download Full-text

Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029826 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (10) ◽

pp. e029826 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Qi Yan ◽

Xinyu Wu ◽

Meiying Su ◽

Fang Hua ◽

Bin Shi

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Sinus Floor Elevation ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

Short Implants ◽

Posterior Maxilla ◽

Sinus Floor ◽

Quality Evidence

ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1–3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1–3 years follow-up (MD=−0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=−0.25 mm, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

Download Full-text

Long-term Short Implants Performance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Essential Assessment Parameters

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/0103-6440201300265 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 26 (4) ◽

pp. 325-336 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Thais Marques Simek Vega Gonçalves ◽

Sergio Bortolini ◽

Matteo Martinolli ◽

Bruna Fernandes Moreira Alfenas ◽

Daiane Cristina Peruzzo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Implant Failure ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Implant Survival Rate ◽

Short Implants

<p>Lack of standard criteria in the outcome assessment makes it difficult to draw conclusions on the clinical performance of short implants and, under these circumstances, determine the reasons for implant failure. This study evaluated, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, the essential parameters required to assess the long-term clinical performance of short and extra-short implants. Electronic databases (Pubmed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Database, Embase, and Lilacs) were searched by two independent reviewers, without language limitation, to identify eligible papers. References from the selected articles were also reviewed. The review included clinical trials involving short dental implants placed in humans, published between January 2000 and March 2014, which described the parameters applied for outcome's measurements and provided data on survival rates. Thirteen methodologically acceptable studies were selected and 24 parameters were identified. The most frequent parameters assessed were the marginal bone loss and the cumulative implant survival rate, followed by implant failure rate and biological complications such as bleeding on probing and probing pocket depths. Only cumulative implant survival rate data allows meta-analysis revealing a positive effect size (from 0.052 (fixed) to 0.042 (random)), which means that short implant appears to be a successful treatment option. Mechanical complications and crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio measurement were also commonly described, however, considering the available evidence; no strong conclusions could be drawn since different methods were used to assess each parameter. By means of this literature review, a standard evaluation scheme is proposed, being helpful to regiment further investigations and comparisons on future studies.</p>

Download Full-text