Abstract
To compare the clinical outcomes of ≤6mm extra-short implants (test group) versus ≥10mm long implants (control group), with and without bone augmentation procedures. A systemic literature search of randomized clinical trials was performed using the PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to compare all the outcome variables. Meta-regression analysis determined the effect of bone augmentation procedures and the influence of other clinical covariates on the results. Eighteen studies comprising 1,612 implants (793 extra-short and 820 long implants) were selected for the meta-analysis. No statistically significant difference in the survival rate was observed at 1 and 3years (p>0.05). Extra-short implants displayed less marginal bone loss (MBL) from both implant placement time points (1 and 3years) and prosthetic placement (1year), as well as less biological complications, surgical time and treatment cost (p<0.05). Contrarily, a statistically significant small number of prosthetic complications were reported with long implants (p<0.05). Placement of extra-short implants (≤6mm) presented as an equivalent option in the treatment of patients with an atrophic posterior arch up to 3-year follow-up. However, the long-term effectiveness of extra-short dental implants remains to be further studied.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
