Purpose:To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of ≤6-mm implants with those of ≥10-mm implants placed after both lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation.Materials and Methods:Using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane, a literature search for randomized controlled trials was performed. All the outcome variables were evaluated through a quantitative meta-analysis, and the influence of other clinical covariates were determined with a metaregression. For the survival outcomes, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to adjust results for type I and II errors and to analyze the power of the available evidence.Results:After full-text reading, 12 studies were included in the analyses. No statistically significant difference was found after 3 years between the 2 study groups (P = 0.36). Short implants displayed fewer biological complications (P = 0.05), less marginal bone loss (MBL) from implant placement (P < 0.01), and reduced surgical time and treatment cost. However, long implants showed a statistically significant smaller number of prosthetic complications (P = 0.03). TSA confirmed the results of the meta-analysis, revealing that additional studies are needed due to low statistical power of the available evidence.Conclusion:The placement of short implants is a predictable option in treating patients with maxillary atrophy up to a 3-year follow-up. Studies with a longer observational period are needed to study the long-term performance of these implants.
Prosthetic Rehabilitation of the Posterior Atrophic Maxilla, Short (≤6 mm) or Long (≥10 mm) Dental Implants? A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis: Naples Consensus Report Working Group A
Troiano G.;
2019-01-01
Abstract
Purpose:To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of ≤6-mm implants with those of ≥10-mm implants placed after both lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation.Materials and Methods:Using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane, a literature search for randomized controlled trials was performed. All the outcome variables were evaluated through a quantitative meta-analysis, and the influence of other clinical covariates were determined with a metaregression. For the survival outcomes, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to adjust results for type I and II errors and to analyze the power of the available evidence.Results:After full-text reading, 12 studies were included in the analyses. No statistically significant difference was found after 3 years between the 2 study groups (P = 0.36). Short implants displayed fewer biological complications (P = 0.05), less marginal bone loss (MBL) from implant placement (P < 0.01), and reduced surgical time and treatment cost. However, long implants showed a statistically significant smaller number of prosthetic complications (P = 0.03). TSA confirmed the results of the meta-analysis, revealing that additional studies are needed due to low statistical power of the available evidence.Conclusion:The placement of short implants is a predictable option in treating patients with maxillary atrophy up to a 3-year follow-up. Studies with a longer observational period are needed to study the long-term performance of these implants.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
