본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Survival of surface-modified short versus long implants in complete or partially edentulous patients with a follow-up of 1 year or more: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Raghavendra Shrishail Medikeri|Marisca Austin Pereira|Manjushri Waingade|Shwetambari Navale
대한치주과학회 (The Korean Academy Of Periodontology)|2022.08|Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science|제52권 제4호|pp. 261-281|DOI 10.5051/jpis.2007340367

2

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

SurvivalMarginal bone lossDental implantsShort dental implantSurface treated
주제분류치의학

초록

Purpose: Short implants are a potential alternative to long implants for use with bone augmentation in atrophic jaws. This meta-analysis investigated the survival rate and marginal bone level (MBL) of surface-modified short vs. long implants. Methods: Electronic and manual searches were performed for articles published between January 2010 and June 2021. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surface-modified short and long implants that reported the survival rate with at least 1 year of follow-up were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and the risk of bias and quality of evidence were evaluated. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed regarding survival rate and MBL. Results: The failure rates of surface-modified short and long implants differed significantly (risk ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46, 3.57; P<0.000). Long implants exhibited a higher survival rate than short implants (mean follow-up, 1–10 years). A significant difference was observed in mean MBL (mean difference=−0.43, 95% CI, −0.63, −0.23; P<0.000), favoring the short implants. Regarding the impact of surface treatment in short and long implants, for hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched (P=0.020) and titanium oxide fluoride-modified (P=0.050) surfaces, the survival rate differed significantly between short and long implants. The MBL differences for novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated, hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched, and dual acid-etched with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystal surfaces (P=0.050, P=0.020, and P<0.000, respectively) differed significantly for short vs. long implants. Conclusions: Short surface-modified implants are a potential alternative to longer implants in atrophic ridges. Long fluoride-modified and hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched implants have higher survival rates than short implants. Short implants with novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surfaces, hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surfaces, and dual acid-etched surfaces with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals showed less marginal bone loss than longer implants. Due to high heterogeneity, the MBL results should be interpreted cautiously, and better-designed RCTs should be assessed in the future. Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) Identifier: CRD42020160185

Abstract

Purpose: Short implants are a potential alternative to long implants for use with bone augmentation in atrophic jaws. This meta-analysis investigated the survival rate and marginal bone level (MBL) of surface-modified short vs. long implants. Methods: Electronic and manual searches were performed for articles published between January 2010 and June 2021. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surface-modified short and long implants that reported the survival rate with at least 1 year of follow-up were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and the risk of bias and quality of evidence were evaluated. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed regarding survival rate and MBL. Results: The failure rates of surface-modified short and long implants differed significantly (risk ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46, 3.57; P<0.000). Long implants exhibited a higher survival rate than short implants (mean follow-up, 1–10 years). A significant difference was observed in mean MBL (mean difference=−0.43, 95% CI, −0.63, −0.23; P<0.000), favoring the short implants. Regarding the impact of surface treatment in short and long implants, for hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched (P=0.020) and titanium oxide fluoride-modified (P=0.050) surfaces, the survival rate differed significantly between short and long implants. The MBL differences for novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated, hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched, and dual acid-etched with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystal surfaces (P=0.050, P=0.020, and P<0.000, respectively) differed significantly for short vs. long implants. Conclusions: Short surface-modified implants are a potential alternative to longer implants in atrophic ridges. Long fluoride-modified and hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched implants have higher survival rates than short implants. Short implants with novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surfaces, hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surfaces, and dual acid-etched surfaces with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals showed less marginal bone loss than longer implants. Due to high heterogeneity, the MBL results should be interpreted cautiously, and better-designed RCTs should be assessed in the future. Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) Identifier: CRD42020160185

참고문헌 (46)

  1. Romeo E, "The use of short dental implants in clinical practice : literature review", Minerva Stomatol, 59, pp.23~31 (2010)
  2. Jemt T, "Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 6, pp.270~276 (1991)
  3. Lekholm U, "Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws : a 10-year prospective multicenter study", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 14, pp.639~645 (1999)
  4. Pommer B, "Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates : a meta-analysis of observational studies", J Clin Periodontol, 38, pp.856~863 (2011)
  5. Karthikeyan I, "Short implants : a systematic review", J Indian Soc Periodontol, 16, pp.302~312 (2012)
  6. Morand M, "The challenge of implant therapy in the posterior maxilla : providing a rationale for the use of short implants", J Oral Implantol, 33, pp.257~266 (2007)
  7. Nisand D, "Short implant in limited bone volume", Periodontol 2000, 66, pp.72~96 (2014)
  8. Novaes AB Jr, "Influence of implant surfaces on osseointegration", Braz Dent J, 21, pp.471~481 (2010)
  9. Jemat A, "Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants", BioMed Res Int, 2015, pp.791725~ (2015)
  10. Deporter D, "Short dental implants: what works and what doesn’t? A literature interpretation", Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 33, pp.457~464 (2013)
  11. Higgins JP, "Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020)" (2020), Cochrane
  12. Guyatt G, "GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables", J Clin Epidemiol, 64, pp.383~394 (2011)
  13. Pistilli R, "Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year results from a randomised controlled trial", Eur J Oral Implantology, 6, pp.343~357 (2013)
  14. Guljé F, "Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial", Clin Oral Implants Res, 24, pp.1325~1331 (2013)
  15. Romeo E, "Six-mm versus 10-mm long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior edentulous jaws : a 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial", Eur J Oral Implantology, 7, pp.371~381 (2014)
  16. Felice P, "Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles : a randomised controlled trial with 5-year after loading follow-up", Eur J Oral Implantology, 7, pp.359~369 (2014)
  17. Esposito M, "Three-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws", Eur J Oral Implantology, 7, pp.383~395 (2014)
  18. Rossi F, "Use of short implants (6 mm) in a single-tooth replacement: a 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study", Clin Oral Implants Res, 27, pp.458~464 (2016)
  19. Schincaglia GP, "Randomized controlled multicenter study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 2: clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year of loading", J Clin Periodontol, 42, pp.1042~1051 (2015)
  20. Bechara S, "Short (6-mm) dental implants versus sinus floor elevation and placement of longer (≥10-mm) dental implants: a randomized controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up", Clin Oral Implants Res, 28, pp.1097~1107 (2017)
  21. Nedir R, "Short implants placed with or without grafting into atrophic sinuses : the 5-year results of a prospective randomized controlled study", Clin Oral Implants Res, 28, pp.877~886 (2017)
  22. Sahrmann P, "Success of 6-mm implants with single-tooth restorations : a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial", J Dent Res, 95, pp.623~628 (2016)
  23. Pohl V, "Short dental implants (6 mm) versus long dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 3-year results from a multicentre, randomized, controlled clinical trial", J Clin Periodontol, 44, pp.438~445 (2017)
  24. Felice P, "Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles : result at 8 years after loading from a randomised controlled trial", Eur J Oral Implantology, 11, pp.385~395 (2018)
  25. Gastaldi G, "Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. 3-year results from a randomised controlled trial", Eur J Oral Implantology, 11, pp.49~61 (2018)
  26. Naenni N, "Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomized controlled clinical trial", J Dent Res, 97, pp.887~892 (2018)
  27. Storelli S, "6 mm vs 10 mm-long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior jaws : a 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial", Eur J Oral Implantology, 11, pp.283~292 (2018)
  28. Thoma DS, "Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 5-year data", J Clin Periodontol, 45, pp.1465~1474 (2018)
  29. Zadeh HH, "Marginal bone level and survival of short and standard-length implants after 3 years: an open multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial", Clin Oral Implants Res, 29, pp.894~906 (2018)
  30. Shah SN, "Can extra-short dental implants serve as alternatives to bone augmentation? A preliminary longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial", Quintessence Int, 49, pp.635~643 (2018)
  31. Felice P, "Five-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws", Int J Oral Implantol (Berl), 12, pp.25~37 (2019)
  32. Shi JY, "Short versus longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation for moderately atrophic posterior maxillae : a 1-year randomized clinical trial", J Clin Periodontol, 46, pp.855~862 (2019)
  33. Guida L, "6-mm-short and 11-mm-long implants compared in the full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible : a 3-year multicenter randomized controlled trial", Clin Oral Implants Res, 31, pp.64~73 (2020)
  34. Hadzik J, "Short (6 mm) and regular dental implants in the posterior maxilla-7-years follow-up study", J Clin Med, 10, pp.940~ (2021)
  35. Esposito M, "Immediately loaded machined versus rough surface dental implants in edentulous jaws : One-year postloading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial", Eur J Oral Implantology, 8, pp.387~396 (2015)
  36. Glibert M, "A randomized controlled clinical trial to assess crestal bone remodeling of four different implant designs", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 20, pp.455~462 (2018)
  37. Yu H, "Outcomes of 6.5-mm hydrophilic implants and long implants placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in the atrophic posterior maxilla: a prospective randomized controlled clinical comparison", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 19, pp.111~122 (2017)
  38. Shi JY, "Clinical evaluation of short 6-mm implants alone, short 8-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation and standard 10-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in posterior maxillae: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial", Trials, 16, pp.324~ (2015)
  39. Hadzik J, "Short implants and conventional implants in limited height alveolar ridge", Med Sci Monit, 24, pp.5645~5652 (2018)
  40. Lemos CA, "Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws : a systematic review and meta-analysis", J Dent, 47, pp.8~17 (2016)
  41. Altaib FH, "Short dental implant as alternative to long implant with bone augmentation of the atrophic posterior ridge : a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs", Quintessence Int, 50, pp.636~650 (2019)
  42. Lin ZZ, "The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants : a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies", Int J Implant Dent, 7, pp.41~ (2021)
  43. Rossi F, "Early loading of 6-mm-short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns--a prospective 5-year cohort study", Clin Oral Implants Res, 26, pp.471~477 (2015)
  44. Telleman G, "A systematic review of the prognosis of short (< 10 mm) implants in the posterior region", J Clin Periodontol, 41, pp.191~213 (2014)
  45. Mezzomo LA, "Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short(<10 mm)implants in the posterior region", J Clin Periodontol, 41, pp.191~213 (2014)
  46. Smeets R, "Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration", Biomed Res Int, 2016, pp.6285620~ (2016)

관련 논문AI추천

Short dental implants in the posterior maxilla: a review of the literatureElahe Karami, Loghman Ahmadi, Shima Asghari, Zeinab Rezaei Esfahrood대한구강악안면외과학회 · 대한구강악안면외과학회지2017 · 제43권 제2호A retrospective clinical study of single short implants (less than 8 mm) in posterior edentulous areas구정귀, 김상윤, 김영균, 김현석, 윤필영대한치과보철학회 · The Journal of Advanced of Prosthodontics2018 · 제10권 제3호짧은 임플란트의 생존율에 관한 고찰김원, 김승미, 오남식, 이은정, 최지영대한치과보철학회 · 대한치과보철학회지2009 · 제47권 제4호구치부에서 짧은 길이 임플란트의 임상적 효용성에 대한 고찰홍지연대한치과의사협회 · 대한치과의사협회지2021 · 제59권 제4호Bone loss-related factors in tissue and bone level dental implants: a systematic review of clinical trialsAida Kheiri, Amin Khodadoustan, Hamed Mortazavi, Lida Kheiri대한구강악안면외과학회 · 대한구강악안면외과학회지2021 · 제47권 제3호A within-subject comparison of short implants in the posterior region: retrospective study of up to 10 yearsÁlvaro Vigo, André Ricardo Maia Correia, Douglas Blum Segalla, Eduardo Aydos Villarinho, Rosemary Sadami Arai Shinkai대한치과보철학회 · The Journal of Advanced of Prosthodontics2021 · 제13권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)

3D printing technology for periodontal complex neogenesis in regenerative medicine박찬호pp. 259-260Subgingival microbiome in periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus: an exploratory study using metagenomic sequencingJia Liu, Lihong Guo, Xianjun Lu, Tingjun Liu, Jiani Zhou, Zijian Yuanpp. 282-297Periodontal granulation tissue preservation in surgical periodontal disease treatment: a pilot prospective cohort studyJose A. Moreno Rodríguez, Antonio J. Ortiz Ruizpp. 298-311The effect of hard-type crosslinked hyaluronic acid with particulate bone substitute on bone regeneration: positive or negative?김성태, 이정원, 이용무, 설양조, 구기태, 윤정섭pp. 312-324Effect of the size of the bony access window and the collagen barrier over the window in sinus floor elevation: a preclinical investigation in a rabbit sinus model정종혁, 김상엽, 홍지연, 신승일, 임현창, 심정은pp. 325-337
원문 보기