Short implants (5–8?mm) vs. long implants in augmented bone and their impact on peri-implant bone in maxilla and/or mandible: Systematic review - 29/03/19

Doi : 10.1016/j.jormas.2018.11.007

M. Amine ^a,^⁎ , Y. Guelzim ^b, S. Benfaida ^a, A. Bennani ^a, A. Andoh ^c
^a Fixed Prosthesis Department, Faculty of Dentistry of Casablanca, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca's Dental Consultation and Treatment Center, CHU Ibn Rochd, B.P 9157 Mers Sultan, Casablanca, Morocco
^b Faculty of Dentistry of Casablanca, Hassan II University of Casablanca, B.P 9157 Mers Sultan, Casablanca, Morocco
^c Department of Biomaterials and fundamental matieres, Faculty of Dentistry of Casablanca, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca's Dental Consultation and Treatment Center, B.P 9157 Mers Sultan, Casablanca, Morocco

^⁎Corresponding author.

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

pages	10
Iconographies	1
Vidéos	0
Autres	0

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this systematic literature review is to determine the impact of implant length on marginal bone loss in atrophied arches.

Material and methods

The systematic search of the literature was carried out using electronic databases PubMed, EbscoHost, Cochrane, as well as a manual search of randomized controlled trials in humans, with a follow-up period of at least 12 months, published between 2005 and 2016, comparing the short implants on the one hand, and the long implants placed in atrophic bone crests having undergone bone augmentation on the other hand. This systematic review followed the guidelines of PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes). The results of the clinical trials were described according to the PICO criteria. The qualitative analysis was conducted by Jadad scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.

Results

Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our systematic review. Gradual marginal bone loss (intra-group comparison) was significant regardless of the arcade. The difference in bone loss between short and long implants (inter-group comparison) was not significant in the first year, but became significant at the end of the fifth year regardless of the arcade.

Conclusion

Despite the satisfactory results in relation to short implants, it is appropriate to extend the duration of RCTs up to 10 years in order to support the data collected in our systematic review.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Dental implant, Short implant, Short length, Randomized controlled trial, Peri-implant marginal bone level, Alveolar bone loss, Atrophic jaws