Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz [UNESP], Okamoto, Roberta [UNESP], Mendonça, Marcos Rogério [UNESP], Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/172655
Resumo: Objective The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare short implants (equal or less than 8 mm) versus standard implants (larger than 8 mm) placed in posterior regions of maxilla and mandible, evaluating survival rates of implants, marginal bone loss, complications and prosthesis failures. Data This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42015016588. Main search terms were used in combination: dental implant, short implant, short dental implants, short dental implants posterior, short dental implants maxilla, and short dental implants mandible. Source An electronic search for data published up until September/2015 was undertaken using the PubMed/Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library databases. Study selection Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, randomized controlled trials and/or prospective studies, which evaluated short implants in comparison to standard implants in the same study. Conclusion The search identified 1460 references, after inclusion criteria 13 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1269 patients, who had received a total of 2631 dental implants. The results showed that there was no significant difference of implants survival (P =.24; RR:1.35; CI: 0.82-2.22), marginal bone loss (P =.06; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.41 to 0.00), complications (P =.08; RR:0.54; CI: 0.27-1.09) and prosthesis failures (P =.92; RR:0.96; CI: 0.44-2.09). Short implants are considered a predictable treatment for posterior jaws. However, short implants with length less than 8 mm (4-7 mm) should be used with caution because they present greater risks to failures compared to standard implants. Clinical significance Short implants are frequently placed in the posterior area in order to avoid complementary surgical procedures. However, clinicians need to be aware that short implants with length less than 8 mm present greater risk of failures.
id UNSP_e8ca488491c355a4763c1ce6d6a4d5e9
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/172655
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysisComplicationsEdentulous jaws partiallyMarginal bone lossMeta-analysisProsthesis failuresObjective The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare short implants (equal or less than 8 mm) versus standard implants (larger than 8 mm) placed in posterior regions of maxilla and mandible, evaluating survival rates of implants, marginal bone loss, complications and prosthesis failures. Data This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42015016588. Main search terms were used in combination: dental implant, short implant, short dental implants, short dental implants posterior, short dental implants maxilla, and short dental implants mandible. Source An electronic search for data published up until September/2015 was undertaken using the PubMed/Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library databases. Study selection Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, randomized controlled trials and/or prospective studies, which evaluated short implants in comparison to standard implants in the same study. Conclusion The search identified 1460 references, after inclusion criteria 13 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1269 patients, who had received a total of 2631 dental implants. The results showed that there was no significant difference of implants survival (P =.24; RR:1.35; CI: 0.82-2.22), marginal bone loss (P =.06; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.41 to 0.00), complications (P =.08; RR:0.54; CI: 0.27-1.09) and prosthesis failures (P =.92; RR:0.96; CI: 0.44-2.09). Short implants are considered a predictable treatment for posterior jaws. However, short implants with length less than 8 mm (4-7 mm) should be used with caution because they present greater risks to failures compared to standard implants. Clinical significance Short implants are frequently placed in the posterior area in order to avoid complementary surgical procedures. However, clinicians need to be aware that short implants with length less than 8 mm present greater risk of failures.Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School UNESP-Univ Estadual Paulista, José Bonifácio St, 1193Department of Surgery and Integrated Clinics Araçatuba Dental School UNESP-Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartment of Pediatric and Community Dentistry Araçatuba Dental School UNESP-Univ Estadual PaulistaCNPqDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School UNESP-Univ Estadual Paulista, José Bonifácio St, 1193Department of Surgery and Integrated Clinics Araçatuba Dental School UNESP-Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartment of Pediatric and Community Dentistry Araçatuba Dental School UNESP-Univ Estadual PaulistaUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)CNPqLemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo [UNESP]Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz [UNESP]Okamoto, Roberta [UNESP]Mendonça, Marcos Rogério [UNESP]Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]2018-12-11T17:01:38Z2018-12-11T17:01:38Z2016-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article8-17application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005Journal of Dentistry, v. 47, p. 8-17.0300-5712http://hdl.handle.net/11449/17265510.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.0052-s2.0-849601995882-s2.0-84960199588.pdf1245541242013543Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengJournal of Dentistry1,919info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-09-19T17:55:49Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/172655Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462024-09-19T17:55:49Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis
spellingShingle Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo [UNESP]
Complications
Edentulous jaws partially
Marginal bone loss
Meta-analysis
Prosthesis failures
title_short Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis
author Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo [UNESP]
author_facet Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo [UNESP]
Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz [UNESP]
Okamoto, Roberta [UNESP]
Mendonça, Marcos Rogério [UNESP]
Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz [UNESP]
Okamoto, Roberta [UNESP]
Mendonça, Marcos Rogério [UNESP]
Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
CNPq
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo [UNESP]
Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz [UNESP]
Okamoto, Roberta [UNESP]
Mendonça, Marcos Rogério [UNESP]
Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Complications
Edentulous jaws partially
Marginal bone loss
Meta-analysis
Prosthesis failures
topic Complications
Edentulous jaws partially
Marginal bone loss
Meta-analysis
Prosthesis failures
description Objective The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare short implants (equal or less than 8 mm) versus standard implants (larger than 8 mm) placed in posterior regions of maxilla and mandible, evaluating survival rates of implants, marginal bone loss, complications and prosthesis failures. Data This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42015016588. Main search terms were used in combination: dental implant, short implant, short dental implants, short dental implants posterior, short dental implants maxilla, and short dental implants mandible. Source An electronic search for data published up until September/2015 was undertaken using the PubMed/Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library databases. Study selection Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, randomized controlled trials and/or prospective studies, which evaluated short implants in comparison to standard implants in the same study. Conclusion The search identified 1460 references, after inclusion criteria 13 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1269 patients, who had received a total of 2631 dental implants. The results showed that there was no significant difference of implants survival (P =.24; RR:1.35; CI: 0.82-2.22), marginal bone loss (P =.06; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.41 to 0.00), complications (P =.08; RR:0.54; CI: 0.27-1.09) and prosthesis failures (P =.92; RR:0.96; CI: 0.44-2.09). Short implants are considered a predictable treatment for posterior jaws. However, short implants with length less than 8 mm (4-7 mm) should be used with caution because they present greater risks to failures compared to standard implants. Clinical significance Short implants are frequently placed in the posterior area in order to avoid complementary surgical procedures. However, clinicians need to be aware that short implants with length less than 8 mm present greater risk of failures.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-04-01
2018-12-11T17:01:38Z
2018-12-11T17:01:38Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005
Journal of Dentistry, v. 47, p. 8-17.
0300-5712
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/172655
10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005
2-s2.0-84960199588
2-s2.0-84960199588.pdf
1245541242013543
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/172655
identifier_str_mv Journal of Dentistry, v. 47, p. 8-17.
0300-5712
10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005
2-s2.0-84960199588
2-s2.0-84960199588.pdf
1245541242013543
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Dentistry
1,919
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 8-17
application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repositoriounesp@unesp.br
_version_ 1813546383718744064