Extra-short implants as effective as regular-length implants with lower biological complications

A new study published in the Official Journal of the Academy of Osseointegration suggests that extra-short implants had less biological problems, required less time for treatment, and had stronger peri-implant bone crest stability than standard-length implants when implanted in grafted regions at various longitudinal follow-up intervals.

Because of its good clinical performance in clinical practice, dental implants have been routinely used to restore edentulous jaws. The presence of sufficient bone and good osseointegration surrounding dental implants is essential for their success. Unfortunately, the inflammation, trauma, or relatively quick bone loss after tooth removal usually causes the vertical bone volume, one of the most important limiting variables for dental implant placement and effective osseointegration, to be insufficient. In order to compare the efficacy of extra-short implants to standard-length implants in graft locations across various longitudinal follow-up intervals, Polianne Alves Mendes and colleagues undertook this study.

The PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting a systematic review. Without regard to language or time period, searches were made in the LILACS, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and gray literature databases. Two independent reviewers carried out the tasks of study selection, risk of bias (Rob 2.0), quality of evidence (GRADE), and data collecting. A third reviewer was brought in to settle disagreements. Using the random-effects model, data were merged.

The key findings of this study were:

There were found to be a total of 1,383 articles, including 11 from four randomized clinical studies that examined 567 implants (276 extra-short and 291 conventional implants with graft) in 186 patients.

The meta-analysis revealed that both groups experienced comparable levels of losses (risk ratio [RR]: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.53 to 2.89; P =.62; I2: 0%) and prosthetic complications (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31 to 2.59; P =.83; I2: 0%).

Regular implants with graft had substantially higher rates of biologic problems (RR: 0.48; CI: 0.29 to 0.77; P =.003; I2: 18%) and less stable peri-implant bone in the jaw at the 12-month follow-up (MD: -0.25; CI: -0.36 to 0.15; P .00001; I2 = 0%).

Extra-short implants should be given considerable consideration as a therapeutic option in the posterior area of the jaw since they are linked with fewer biological problems and are just as successful as regular-length implants (with bone grafting).

Reference:

de Pinho DDS MSc student/Leandro Chambrone DDS PhD/Elton Gonçalves Zenóbio DDS, P. A. M. D. M. S. E. de A. S. D. P. V. da C. D. M. S. M. (n.d.). Effectiveness of extra-short (< 6 mm) implants compared to standard-length implants associated with bone graft: Systematic review. Quintpub.com. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9990