Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract 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, compli...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of dentistry 2016-04, Vol.47, p.8-17 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 17 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 8 |
| container_title | Journal of dentistry |
| container_volume | 47 |
| creator | Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz Okamoto, Roberta Mendonça, Marcos Rogério Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza |
| description | Abstract 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1774164557</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0300571216300057</els_id><sourcerecordid>1774164557</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-e3eda900b36936241eaa82162694e67e12e843cd3b1a12f9c58f6e062f32e1583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUl2L1TAQDaK419VfIEjAF19aJ0mbtoLCsvgFCz6sgm8hN52yqf24ZtJd-u9N964K64NPM0nOOZOZM4w9F5ALEPp1n_ctTjGX6ZCDyAHKB2wn6qrJRKW_P2Q7UABZWQl5wp4Q9QBQgGwesxOpayga3ezYenk1h8g3ITtwPx4GO0Xi1xhoIU7RTq0N7T_vKThsuZ94vEJ-mCli8HPgvb2hN_yM05puRhu94wGvPd7wJMRHjDazkx1W8vSUPersQPjsLp6ybx_efz3_lF18-fj5_Owic2VZxQwVtrYB2CvdKC0LgdbWUmipmwJ1hUJiXSjXqr2wQnaNK-tOI2jZKYmirNUpe3XUPYT554IUzejJ4ZAawXkhI6qqELpIxRL05T1oPy8h_fcWVYpSVqVKKHVEuTATBezMIfjRhtUIMJszpje3zpjNGQPCJGcS68Wd9rIfsf3D-W1FArw9AjANI40sGHIepzRmH9BF087-PwXe3eO7wU_e2eEHrkh_OzEkDZjLbTm23RA6JSlTvwDtdrWt</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1775152753</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo ; Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz ; Okamoto, Roberta ; Mendonça, Marcos Rogério ; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creator><creatorcontrib>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo ; Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz ; Okamoto, Roberta ; Mendonça, Marcos Rogério ; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0300-5712</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-176X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26804969</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Complications ; Confidence intervals ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods ; Dental Implants ; Dental Prosthesis Design ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported ; Dental Restoration Failure ; Dentistry ; Edentulous jaws partially ; Failure ; Humans ; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - surgery ; Marginal bone loss ; Maxillofacial surgery ; Meta-analysis ; Methods ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Prostheses ; Prosthesis failures ; Quality ; Studies ; Success ; Transplants & implants</subject><ispartof>Journal of dentistry, 2016-04, Vol.47, p.8-17</ispartof><rights>2016</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Apr 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-e3eda900b36936241eaa82162694e67e12e843cd3b1a12f9c58f6e062f32e1583</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-e3eda900b36936241eaa82162694e67e12e843cd3b1a12f9c58f6e062f32e1583</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8273-489X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571216300057$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26804969$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okamoto, Roberta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mendonça, Marcos Rogério</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creatorcontrib><title>Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Journal of dentistry</title><addtitle>J Dent</addtitle><description>Abstract 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.</description><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</subject><subject>Dental Restoration Failure</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Edentulous jaws partially</subject><subject>Failure</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - surgery</subject><subject>Marginal bone loss</subject><subject>Maxillofacial surgery</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Prosthesis failures</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><issn>0300-5712</issn><issn>1879-176X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUl2L1TAQDaK419VfIEjAF19aJ0mbtoLCsvgFCz6sgm8hN52yqf24ZtJd-u9N964K64NPM0nOOZOZM4w9F5ALEPp1n_ctTjGX6ZCDyAHKB2wn6qrJRKW_P2Q7UABZWQl5wp4Q9QBQgGwesxOpayga3ezYenk1h8g3ITtwPx4GO0Xi1xhoIU7RTq0N7T_vKThsuZ94vEJ-mCli8HPgvb2hN_yM05puRhu94wGvPd7wJMRHjDazkx1W8vSUPersQPjsLp6ybx_efz3_lF18-fj5_Owic2VZxQwVtrYB2CvdKC0LgdbWUmipmwJ1hUJiXSjXqr2wQnaNK-tOI2jZKYmirNUpe3XUPYT554IUzejJ4ZAawXkhI6qqELpIxRL05T1oPy8h_fcWVYpSVqVKKHVEuTATBezMIfjRhtUIMJszpje3zpjNGQPCJGcS68Wd9rIfsf3D-W1FArw9AjANI40sGHIepzRmH9BF087-PwXe3eO7wU_e2eEHrkh_OzEkDZjLbTm23RA6JSlTvwDtdrWt</recordid><startdate>20160401</startdate><enddate>20160401</enddate><creator>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo</creator><creator>Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz</creator><creator>Okamoto, Roberta</creator><creator>Mendonça, Marcos Rogério</creator><creator>Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8273-489X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160401</creationdate><title>Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo ; Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz ; Okamoto, Roberta ; Mendonça, Marcos Rogério ; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-e3eda900b36936241eaa82162694e67e12e843cd3b1a12f9c58f6e062f32e1583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</topic><topic>Dental Restoration Failure</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Edentulous jaws partially</topic><topic>Failure</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - surgery</topic><topic>Marginal bone loss</topic><topic>Maxillofacial surgery</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Prosthesis failures</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okamoto, Roberta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mendonça, Marcos Rogério</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo</au><au>Ferro-Alves, Marcio Luiz</au><au>Okamoto, Roberta</au><au>Mendonça, Marcos Rogério</au><au>Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Dent</addtitle><date>2016-04-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>47</volume><spage>8</spage><epage>17</epage><pages>8-17</pages><issn>0300-5712</issn><eissn>1879-176X</eissn><abstract>Abstract 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.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>26804969</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8273-489X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0300-5712 |
| ispartof | Journal of dentistry, 2016-04, Vol.47, p.8-17 |
| issn | 0300-5712 1879-176X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1774164557 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Complications Confidence intervals Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods Dental Implants Dental Prosthesis Design Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported Dental Restoration Failure Dentistry Edentulous jaws partially Failure Humans Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - surgery Marginal bone loss Maxillofacial surgery Meta-analysis Methods Postoperative Complications - etiology Prostheses Prosthesis failures Quality Studies Success Transplants & implants |
| title | Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T23%3A01%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Short%20dental%20implants%20versus%20standard%20dental%20implants%20placed%20in%20the%20posterior%20jaws:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20dentistry&rft.au=Lemos,%20Cleidiel%20Aparecido%20Araujo&rft.date=2016-04-01&rft.volume=47&rft.spage=8&rft.epage=17&rft.pages=8-17&rft.issn=0300-5712&rft.eissn=1879-176X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1774164557%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1775152753&rft_id=info:pmid/26804969&rft_els_id=S0300571216300057&rfr_iscdi=true |