Objective: The specific purposes of this study were (1) to undertake a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis based only on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare the rates of survival and complications of short implants to those of long implants; (2) to compare the surgical time and cost of short implants to those of long implants.
Methods: RCTs were identified from the major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) using the keywords "dental implant," "short implant" and "atrophic maxilla," and a quantitative meta-analysis was conducted. The survival rate of implants and complications were the primary outcome measures, and other parameters assessed included costs and surgical time.
Results: Seven RCTs that met the inclusion criteria included 554 implants (265 implants in the short implant group). There was no significant difference in survival rate between two groups (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: [0.97, 1.03]; p = .96; seven trials, 554 participants). Compared with long implant group, the short implant group had a lower complications and the effect measure was significant (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: [0.37, 0.90]; p = .02; seven trials, 554 participants).
Conclusion: This systematic review showed that no difference between the survival rates of short implants (5-8 mm) and long implants (>8 mm); complications in short implants are lower than that in long implants. However, further studies are required to substantiate our findings.
Keywords: atrophic maxilla; dental implant; meta-analysis; short implant.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.