Statement of problem: Limited data are available regarding the reliability of short implants (≤8.5 mm) in patients with resorbed completely edentulous jaws.
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of short implants (intervention) versus long implants (≥10 mm, comparison) in the rehabilitation of completely edentulous jaws.
Material and methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short and long implants supporting fixed or removable prostheses in completely edentulous jaws. Outcome measures included implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), and biological and technical complications. The risks of bias within and across the studies were assessed, and meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses by types of prostheses, jaw locations, and follow-up length were performed.
Results: A total of 4 RCTs with 158 participants were included. No significant difference was found between short implants and long implants regarding implant survival (RR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.05, P=.710, I2=70%) or MBL (MD=-0.19 mm, 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.02, P=.070, I2=94%). In subgroup analyses, when supporting fixed prostheses, short implants showed significantly less MBL than long implants (P<.001). In the mandible, short implants showed higher implant survival (P=.008) and less MBL (P<.001). Participants receiving long implants combined with bone augmentation procedures reported more postsurgery pain.
Conclusions: For completely edentulous jaws, short implants provide a reliable treatment alternative, as survival and MBL were not different when compared with those of long implants. However, additional high-level evidence is still needed to determine the long-term clinical outcomes of short implants in completely edentulous jaws.
Copyright © 2022 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.