Long-Term Outcomes of Short versus Long Dental Implants with Sinus Lift in Atrophied Posterior Maxillae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Puerto Rico health sciences journal Pub Date : 2025-03-01
Brayann O Alemán, Irelsy Rivera-Velazquez, Zareth Jana-Hernández, Sona Rivas-Tumanyan, Lidia M Guerrero-Rodríguez, Augusto R Elias-Boneta
{"title":"Long-Term Outcomes of Short versus Long Dental Implants with Sinus Lift in Atrophied Posterior Maxillae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Brayann O Alemán, Irelsy Rivera-Velazquez, Zareth Jana-Hernández, Sona Rivas-Tumanyan, Lidia M Guerrero-Rodríguez, Augusto R Elias-Boneta","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate implant outcomes, including success or survival, complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL), in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing short versus long implants with sinus augmentation (SA) after 5 or more years of loading. The objective was to update the qualitative and quantitative evidence on this topic and provide a comprehensive analysis of the previously identified implant outcomes. Electronic searches were conducted in 4 scientific databases from 2016 through 2024. Only RCTs with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years were included (7 studies); these were rated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool for main outcomes. The overall risk of bias was \"High\" in 5 studies, whereas 2 studies were rated as \"Some concerns.\" The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with Stata software, version 18, for implant success and survival (2.37; 95% CI: 0.83-6.78, P = .11) and for implant complications (0.88; 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P = .43). The Cohen's d for MBL was -0.41 mm (95% CI: -0.72 to -0.09, P = .01). There was no statistically significant difference in implant success and survival between short and long implants with SA (P = .60). Due to the overall high risk of bias, no definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the success or survival of short versus long implants. Further RCTs with clear descriptions of implant outcomes, rigorous standardization and calibration protocols, meticulous sample-size calculation, and extended follow-up periods are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":94183,"journal":{"name":"Puerto Rico health sciences journal","volume":"44 1","pages":"54-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Puerto Rico health sciences journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate implant outcomes, including success or survival, complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL), in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing short versus long implants with sinus augmentation (SA) after 5 or more years of loading. The objective was to update the qualitative and quantitative evidence on this topic and provide a comprehensive analysis of the previously identified implant outcomes. Electronic searches were conducted in 4 scientific databases from 2016 through 2024. Only RCTs with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years were included (7 studies); these were rated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool for main outcomes. The overall risk of bias was "High" in 5 studies, whereas 2 studies were rated as "Some concerns." The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with Stata software, version 18, for implant success and survival (2.37; 95% CI: 0.83-6.78, P = .11) and for implant complications (0.88; 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P = .43). The Cohen's d for MBL was -0.41 mm (95% CI: -0.72 to -0.09, P = .01). There was no statistically significant difference in implant success and survival between short and long implants with SA (P = .60). Due to the overall high risk of bias, no definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the success or survival of short versus long implants. Further RCTs with clear descriptions of implant outcomes, rigorous standardization and calibration protocols, meticulous sample-size calculation, and extended follow-up periods are needed.

后上颌萎缩的短牙种植体与长牙种植体鼻窦提升的远期疗效:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
本研究旨在评估种植体的结果,包括成功或存活、并发症和边缘骨质流失(MBL),在随机对照试验(rct)中,比较短种植体和长种植体与窦性增强(SA)在5年或更长时间的负荷。目的是更新这一主题的定性和定量证据,并对先前确定的种植结果进行全面分析。从2016年到2024年,在4个科学数据库中进行了电子检索。仅纳入最低随访期为5年的rct(7项研究);使用修订后的Cochrane风险偏倚(RoB 2)工具对主要结果进行评分。5项研究的总体偏倚风险为“高”,而2项研究被评为“一些关注”。使用Stata软件,版本18计算植入成功和生存的风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI) (2.37;95% CI: 0.83-6.78, P = 0.11)和种植体并发症(0.88;95% ci: 0.64-1.21, p = 0.43)。MBL的Cohen’s d为-0.41 mm (95% CI: -0.72 ~ -0.09, P = 0.01)。SA短种植体和长种植体的种植成功率和生存期差异无统计学意义(P = 0.60)。由于整体偏倚风险较高,对于短植入物与长植入物的成功或存活,没有明确的结论。进一步的随机对照试验需要明确描述种植体结果、严格的标准化和校准方案、细致的样本量计算和延长的随访期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信