Cargando…

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of using short implants (≤ 8 mm) inserted with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted with sinus floor elevation (SFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae with insufficient residual...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tang, Chenxi, Du, Qianhui, Luo, Jiaying, Peng, Lin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9535054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36197540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00443-1
_version_ 1784802685671702528
author Tang, Chenxi
Du, Qianhui
Luo, Jiaying
Peng, Lin
author_facet Tang, Chenxi
Du, Qianhui
Luo, Jiaying
Peng, Lin
author_sort Tang, Chenxi
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of using short implants (≤ 8 mm) inserted with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted with sinus floor elevation (SFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae with insufficient residual bone height (RBH). METHODS: An electronic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1994 to July 2022, in combination with a manual search of references in relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical results between short and standard implant placement with SFE were included. The primary outcomes were implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL); the secondary outcome was complication rate. RESULTS: Three RCTs were included, totaling 138 short and 156 standard implants. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the short and standard implant groups in survival rate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI   0.96–1.08, p = 0.570), MBL (MD = − 0.13, 95% CI   − 0.32 to 0.07, p = 0.190) and complication rate (intra-surgical complication: RR = 1.14, 95% CI   0.46–2.83, p = 0.770; post-operative complication: RR = 1.34, 95% CI   0.71–2.55, p = 0.370). CONCLUSIONS: Using short implants (≤ 8 mm) combined with OSFE might be an alternative to standard implants (≥ 10 mm) with SFE when the RBH of the posterior maxilla is insufficient. Based on a short-term clinical observation, short implants with OSFE show good results in terms of survival rate, MBL, and complication incidence. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text]
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9535054
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95350542022-10-07 Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis Tang, Chenxi Du, Qianhui Luo, Jiaying Peng, Lin Int J Implant Dent Review PURPOSE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of using short implants (≤ 8 mm) inserted with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted with sinus floor elevation (SFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae with insufficient residual bone height (RBH). METHODS: An electronic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1994 to July 2022, in combination with a manual search of references in relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical results between short and standard implant placement with SFE were included. The primary outcomes were implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL); the secondary outcome was complication rate. RESULTS: Three RCTs were included, totaling 138 short and 156 standard implants. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the short and standard implant groups in survival rate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI   0.96–1.08, p = 0.570), MBL (MD = − 0.13, 95% CI   − 0.32 to 0.07, p = 0.190) and complication rate (intra-surgical complication: RR = 1.14, 95% CI   0.46–2.83, p = 0.770; post-operative complication: RR = 1.34, 95% CI   0.71–2.55, p = 0.370). CONCLUSIONS: Using short implants (≤ 8 mm) combined with OSFE might be an alternative to standard implants (≥ 10 mm) with SFE when the RBH of the posterior maxilla is insufficient. Based on a short-term clinical observation, short implants with OSFE show good results in terms of survival rate, MBL, and complication incidence. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9535054/ /pubmed/36197540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00443-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Tang, Chenxi
Du, Qianhui
Luo, Jiaying
Peng, Lin
Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9535054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36197540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00443-1
work_keys_str_mv AT tangchenxi simultaneousplacementofshortimplants8mmversusstandardlengthimplants10mmaftersinusfloorelevationinatrophicposteriormaxillaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT duqianhui simultaneousplacementofshortimplants8mmversusstandardlengthimplants10mmaftersinusfloorelevationinatrophicposteriormaxillaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT luojiaying simultaneousplacementofshortimplants8mmversusstandardlengthimplants10mmaftersinusfloorelevationinatrophicposteriormaxillaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT penglin simultaneousplacementofshortimplants8mmversusstandardlengthimplants10mmaftersinusfloorelevationinatrophicposteriormaxillaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis