Vanessa Felipe Vargas-Moreno, Michele Costa de Oliveira Ribeiro, Rafael Soares Gomes, Fernanda Faot, Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury, Raissa Micaella Marcello-Machado
{"title":"Clinical performance of short and extrashort dental implants with wide diameter: A systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Vanessa Felipe Vargas-Moreno, Michele Costa de Oliveira Ribeiro, Rafael Soares Gomes, Fernanda Faot, Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury, Raissa Micaella Marcello-Machado","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>Rehabilitation with wide-diameter reduced-length implants has become popular for patients with minimal vertical bone. However, a consensus on the benefits of this approach is lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of wide compared with regular diameter on the clinical performance of short (<10 mm) and extrashort (≤6 mm) dental implants used for rehabilitations with single crowns, fixed partial dentures, or both, in the posterior region.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A search in 6 databases was conducted to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (N-RCTs). Five meta-analyses were performed, where the risk ratio (RR) was evaluated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated, and the risk of bias was determined from the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen articles were included, 272 wide- and 478 regular-diameter implants. One study presented a low, 3 an unclear, and 11 a high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no statistical difference: implant survival, short dental implants in N-RCTs (up to 1 year - RR 1.01 [0.98; 1.03], 1 to 5 years - RR 1.01 [0.94; 1.08], more than 5 years - RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.06]), extrashort dental implants in N-RCTs (RR 1.04 [0.90; 1.20]), RCTs (RR 1.05 [0.88; 1.25]); implant success in N-RCTs (RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.05]); prosthesis success in N-RCTs (RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.05]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Short and extrashort dental implants with a wide and regular diameter appear to be clinically appropriate options for implant-supported posterior restorations, with high survival, success, and prosthesis success rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"1260.e1-1260.e13"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.004","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Statement of problem: Rehabilitation with wide-diameter reduced-length implants has become popular for patients with minimal vertical bone. However, a consensus on the benefits of this approach is lacking.
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of wide compared with regular diameter on the clinical performance of short (<10 mm) and extrashort (≤6 mm) dental implants used for rehabilitations with single crowns, fixed partial dentures, or both, in the posterior region.
Material and methods: A search in 6 databases was conducted to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (N-RCTs). Five meta-analyses were performed, where the risk ratio (RR) was evaluated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated, and the risk of bias was determined from the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist.
Results: Fourteen articles were included, 272 wide- and 478 regular-diameter implants. One study presented a low, 3 an unclear, and 11 a high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no statistical difference: implant survival, short dental implants in N-RCTs (up to 1 year - RR 1.01 [0.98; 1.03], 1 to 5 years - RR 1.01 [0.94; 1.08], more than 5 years - RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.06]), extrashort dental implants in N-RCTs (RR 1.04 [0.90; 1.20]), RCTs (RR 1.05 [0.88; 1.25]); implant success in N-RCTs (RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.05]); prosthesis success in N-RCTs (RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.05]).
Conclusions: Short and extrashort dental implants with a wide and regular diameter appear to be clinically appropriate options for implant-supported posterior restorations, with high survival, success, and prosthesis success rates.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
