Long-term Short Implants Performance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Essential Assessment Parameters

Brazilian Dental Journal

Thais Marques Simek Vega Gonçalves¹  Sergio Bortolini¹  Matteo Martinolli¹  Bruna Fernandes Moreira Alfenas¹  Daiane Cristina Peruzzo¹  Alfredo Natali¹  Andrea Berzaghi¹  Renata Cunha Matheus Rodrigues Garcia¹ 

关键词: short dental implants;    treatment outcomes;    failures;    complications;    clinical success;   

DOI  :  10.1590/0103-6440201300265

来源: SciELO

【 摘 要 】

Lack of standard criteria in the outcome assessment makes it difficult to draw conclusions on the clinical performance of short implants and, under these circumstances, determine the reasons for implant failure. This study evaluated, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, the essential parameters required to assess the long-term clinical performance of short and extra-short implants. Electronic databases (Pubmed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Database, Embase, and Lilacs) were searched by two independent reviewers, without language limitation, to identify eligible papers. References from the selected articles were also reviewed. The review included clinical trials involving short dental implants placed in humans, published between January 2000 and March 2014, which described the parameters applied for outcome's measurements and provided data on survival rates. Thirteen methodologically acceptable studies were selected and 24 parameters were identified. The most frequent parameters assessed were the marginal bone loss and the cumulative implant survival rate, followed by implant failure rate and biological complications such as bleeding on probing and probing pocket depths. Only cumulative implant survival rate data allows meta-analysis revealing a positive effect size (from 0.052 (fixed) to 0.042 (random)), which means that short implant appears to be a successful treatment option. Mechanical complications and crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio measurement were also commonly described, however, considering the available evidence; no strong conclusions could be drawn since different methods were used to assess each parameter. By means of this literature review, a standard evaluation scheme is proposed, being helpful to regiment further investigations and comparisons on future studies.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
 All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License