Clinical performance of short and extrashort dental implants with wide diameter: A systematic review with meta-analysis

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

Clinical performance of short and extrashort dental implants with wide diameter: A systematic review with meta-analysis

J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Feb 23:S0022-3913(23)00010-0. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.004. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Vanessa Felipe Vargas-Moreno¹, Michele Costa de Oliveira Ribeiro¹, Rafael Soares Gomes², Fernanda Faot³, Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury⁴, Raissa Micaella Marcello-Machado⁵

Affiliations

¹ PhD student, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology; Piracicaba Dental School (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
² Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Technology and Sciences (UniFTC), Salvador, BA, Brazil.
³ Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas (UFPel), RS, Brazil.
⁴ Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology; Piracicaba Dental School (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
⁵ Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology; Piracicaba Dental School (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: raissammm@gmail.com.

PMID: 36841707
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.004

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.

Publication types

Review