Short implants (≤8 mm) compared to standard length implants (>8 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 2 (February 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nielsen, H.B.; Schou, S.; Isidor, F.; Christensen, A.-E.; Starch-Jensen, T.
• Is Part Of: International journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery. Volume 48:Issue 2(2019:Feb.)
• Page Start: 239
• Page End: 249
• Publication Date: 2019-02
• Subjects: alveolar ridge augmentation -- dental implants -- meta-analysis -- sinus floor augmentation -- systematic review; Mouth -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry, Operative; Oral Surgical Procedures; Surgery, Oral; Dentistry; Maxilla -- Surgery; Mouth -- Surgery; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 617.52059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.05.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0901-5027

Abstract

Abstract: The objective was to test the hypothesis of no difference in the treatment outcome after the installation of short implants (≤8 mm) in the posterior part of the maxilla compared to standard length implants (>8 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) using the lateral window technique, after an observation period of ≥3 years. A search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals, was conducted. The search yielded 1102 titles. Finally, three studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. All were considered to have a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses revealed no significant differences in implant survival or peri-implant marginal bone loss between the two treatment modalities. However, the use of standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA was characterized by a tendency towards more peri-implant marginal bone loss. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment modalities with regard to overall patient satisfaction. Short implants seem to be a suitable alternative to standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. However, further randomized controlled trials with larger patient samples and an observation period of more than 3 years are needed before one treatment modality might be considered superior to the other.