Abstract

Background One of the greatest challenges that dentists face today is to rehabilitate severe atrophied alveolar ridges in partially and completely edentulous patients with implants. Despite the high survival rate of implants placed next to sinus elevation, this technique presents complications that can be avoided by placing short implants, an option that also presents high survival rates. For this reason, the aim of this study is to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss and complications associated with short implants (<8 mm) versus longer implants (≥8mm) placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in posterior atrophic maxillae. Material and Methods A literature search was conducted by two independent reviewers in the PubMed/Medline (National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC) electronic database for articles published from January 2007 to July 2018. Seven qualified articles were selected for the meta-analysis. Results The test for overall effect did not find statistical significance in the survival rates, overall complications, intra-operative complications, post-operative complications and prosthetic complications. However, the test showed statistically significant differences in biological complications in favor of standard implants, and marginal bone loss between control and test groups in favor of short implants (<8mm) was found. Conclusions Within the limitations of the present study, prosthetic rehabilitations with short implants (<8mm) in posterior maxilla is a reliable treatment option as an alternative to lateral wall sinus floor augmentation. Key words:Short implant, lateral sinus floor augmentation, Randomized controlled trial, Survival rate, Complications, Marginal bone loss.

Highlights

  • One of the greatest challenges that dentists face today is to rehabilitate severe atrophied alveolar ridges in partially and completely edentulous patients with implants

  • The aim of the present study was to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss and complications associated with short implants (

  • The test for overall effect showed no statistically significant differences in the survival rate of short implants (

Read more

Summary

Introduction

One of the greatest challenges that dentists face today is to rehabilitate severe atrophied alveolar ridges in partially and completely edentulous patients with implants. Due to the high percentage of anatomical variations among patients [7] and the sensitivity of the technique, these procedures are not exempt from complications: Schneiderian membrane perforation, sinusitis, nasal bleeding, hematomas, post-operative pain, dehiscence, graft failure, or migration of the implant into the sinus cavity are common complications associated with sinus floor elevation surgery [8,9]. For this reason, several alternatives have been proposed to avoid sinus lifting, such as tilted implants or short implants [10]. The test showed statistically significant differences in biological complications in favor of standard implants, and marginal bone loss between control and test groups in favor of short implants (

Objectives
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.