Short Implants in Sites without Bone Augmentation: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Beatrix Zheng and Version 1 by Marco Annunziata.

Moderate evidence exists suggesting that short implants perform as well as longer ones in the rehabilitation of edentulous sites without the need for bone augmentation. Further long-term, well-designed RCTs, however, are still needed to provide specific evidence-based clinical recommendations for extended use of short implants in non-atrophic sites. 

  • short implants
  • non-atrophic sites
  • implant survival rate
  • meta-analysis

1. Introduction

The rehabilitation of edentulous patients with dental implants constitutes a stable and highly predictable acquisition of modern dentistry, corroborated by well-documented clinical results and long survival [1,2][1][2]. The presence of an adequate bone volume at the edentulous site still represents a basic requirement for dental implants to be correctly placed. Dimensional reduction of the alveolar process, however, usually happens after tooth extraction, and adjunctive loss of bone may be caused by trauma, periodontal disease, or atrophy [3]. In these cases, additional reconstructive surgeries, e.g. vertical bone augmentation procedures or sinus lift, may be applied to allow standard-length implant placement, although they are invariably associated with relevant limitations, such as longer treatment time, additional costs, increased postoperative morbidity, and a higher risk of complications [4,5,6,7,8][4][5][6][7][8].
A widely documented alternative to augmentation surgical procedures is represented by the rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous sites with implants of reduced length, which have reached a considerable diffusion in the last few years with very promising clinical results [9,10,11,12][9][10][11][12].
Several advantages are linked to the use of short implants, including ease of handling, reduced surgical invasiveness, and a low risk of injuring noble anatomical structures, thus sustaining the concept of a “stress minimizing surgery” [9]. Short implants, however, are not free from risks and complications, due to the higher crown-implant ratio and the lower bone-to-implant contact area with respect to longer fixtures [13].
The clinical performance of short implants has been widely investigated in the recent literature, with no univocal findings. Higher failure rates have been historically associated with short implants compared to longer ones [14,15][14][15]. More recent studies showed, for short implants, clinical outcomes comparable to, or even better than, longer implants placed either in native or augmented bone, as confirmed by several systematic reviews [8,12,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25][8][12][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25].
The reasons for such a great variability may be found in several elements of heterogeneity among studies. The definition of “short dental implant”, for instance, greatly differs from <10 mm to ≤8 mm and, more recently, ≤7 mm [15,26,27,28][15][26][27][28]. In this sense, in the 2015 EAO Consensus Conference on the use of short implants for dental rehabilitation [11], the reseauthorchers recommend, for future research, to identify the minimum length for a predictable survival of implants (redefining the concept itself of “short” implant) and to perform clinical trials with an appropriate design to reliably compare these therapeutic concepts in the long term. Furthermore, one should consider that the greatest part of the existing studies is designed to compare short implants placed in pristine atrophic bone with long implants inserted in augmented sites. Finally, short- and medium-term data (1 to 5 years from loading) are prevalent, and longer follow-ups are lacking.

2. Current Insights

The present meta-analysis exclusively included randomized controlled trials comparing short (≤6 mm) and longer (≥8.5 mm) implants placed in sites without the need for bone augmentation.
Universally accepted definitions of a “short”, “standard”, or “long” implant in the literature do not yet exist, and these concepts continuously evolved throughout the years [27,45,56][27][29][30]. In accordance with the 2018 ITI Consensus Report [12], the reseauthorchers considered truly “short” implants of length ≤ 6 mm, in comparison to control implants with a length ≥ 8.5 mm.
Short implants have been extensively proposed in atrophic sites as an alternative to longer implants associated with bone augmentation, finding in this treatment their natural term of comparison.
Dental implants placed in vertically augmented bone showed a high survival rate (98%, range 95–100%), comparably to short implants placed in atrophic sites (96%, range 86.7–100%) after periods of 1 to 5 years in function, although they were associated with a higher number of complications, surgical time, and treatment costs [12].
The reseauthorchers believe, however, that comparisons of short and long implants in the same clinical scenario could be the only one able to correctly evaluate their performance avoiding the effect of confounding factors related to the different characteristics of the edentulous sites, especially those related to the augmentation procedure itself.
Only two other meta-analyses, among those available in the literature, addressed this issue, trying to analyse, by specific sub-analyses, the influence on the reported outcomes of the variable “bone augmentation” among the included trials [8[8][25],25], thus representing the main term of comparison for outhe researchers' results. With respect to those meta-analyses, however, the authoresearchers were able to include a higher number of more recent RCTs [34,35,44,48,49,50,52,53][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] with longer follow-up, as well as further additional data directly obtained by the reseauthorchers themselves.
The first relevant finding of the present meta-analysis is the comparable survival rate found between test and control groups at all the available follow-up times, although the low number of available studies limits the strength of the evidence for this outcome. In fact, the available sample size is smaller than the optimal information size and this affects the rating of evidence by the GRADE methods, indicating a moderate quality, as well as the TSA, which revealed the weak power of the meta-analysis findings. Recent systematic reviews on short implants separately performed additional analyses focused on those RCTs comparing short and longer implants placed in non-augmented bone [8,25][8][25]. Ravidà et al. (2019) showed homogeneous results in terms of survival rates between trials with or without bone augmentation procedures, thus suggesting no influence of this variable on this outcome. It must be underlined that just one study of only one follow-up period (one year) was included in the “non-augmentation” group by the reseauthorchers. Yu et al. (2021) performed a similar sub-group analysis on a larger number of studies and follow-up periods (1, 3, and 5 years). In this case, accordingly to our the researchers' analysis, a trend for higher risk of failure for short implants at 1 and 3 years was found, which reached the significance, differently from ourthe researchers' results, at 5 years of follow-up with an RR of 0.955 (95% CI 0.912–0.999, p < 0.05). Several factors must be considered for a correct interpretation of such different findings, including the type of edentulism, the loading time, and the prosthetic design. Indeed, if wthe researchers look at the trials reporting a higher risk of failure for short implants at 5 years in the study by Yu et al. (2021), the authoresearchers find that all the implants were early loaded and supported single crowns or 2/3-units fixed partial prostheses. In contrast, two over the three additional data sets (from two studies [35,44][32][33]) included in the ourresearchers' analysis regarded splinted implants, conventionally loaded, supporting full-arch rehabilitations of mandibular edentulism. Moreover, details on other important variables (such as bruxism, smoke habit, bone quality, and implant stability) in the patients experiencing implant loss were rarely provided by the primary studies, making it more difficult to correctly analyse possible causes and risk factors of implant failures.
Peri-implant marginal bone level maintenance over time is of pivotal importance for the long-term success of dental implants. The present meta-analysis showed that only 1- and 5-year follow-up data from implant placement showed a significantly higher bone loss for the long implant group. However, such results must be considered with caution due to the very low number of included studies and the high heterogeneity found, with a significant impact on the overall evaluation given by two articles [43,44][33][39] derived from the same study. This latter result was the only one included in the “no augmentation” group by Ravidà et al. [8] in their meta-analysis, resulting in a significantly higher bone loss for the long implant group at the 1-year follow-up. Also, Yu et al. [25] performed a sub-group analysis for MBLc on “augmentation” vs. “no augmentation” studies one year after two baseline points (implant placement and prosthetic loading). They did not find a difference between long and short implants one year after prosthetic loading and, different from the restudyearch results, also one year after implant placement. Also in this case, the low number of included studies and their heterogeneity impose caution.
In addition, the incidence of the reported biological and technical complications did not show a statistically significant difference between short and long implants, in line with the analyses performed by previous similar reviews up to 5 years of follow-up [8,25][8][25]. At longer follow-ups, a statistically significant higher number of technical complications was found after 10 years [53][38], although the value of this finding was sustained by only one trial. It is hard, however, to compare the results with those from other similar studies, in light of the different biological complications considered (only the occurrence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was analysed in outhe r studyesearch), and, moreover, of the different diagnostic criteria adopted for such diseases among the studies.
Looking at the main limitations of the present meta-analysis, the low number of includible studies and their mainly short/medium follow-ups must be cited. Furthermore, the variety of experimental conditions among studies limits the power of the obtained results, and no further analyses could be performed based on variables including implant location (mandible vs. maxilla), type of edentulism (total vs. partial), implant type, smoke habit, implant loading, periodontal health, systemic conditions due to the reduced number of available studies, or the lack of information retrievable about these variables. No subgroup analysis could be performed for confounding factors, such as smoking and periodontal status, or for the level of analysis (implant or patient-level). Implant-level and patient-level data were pooled together in the MBLc meta-analysis, with a consequent possible underestimation of the confidence intervals for the pooled estimate.
Further, well-designed RCTs comparing clinical and radiological outcomes of short and long implants placed in similar conditions (location, type of edentulism, prosthetic rehabilitation, etc.) and with adequate analysis of confounding factors should be performed to obtain more solid evidence about the efficacy of short implants used in atrophic sites.
This approach would also help to extend their clinical indications, supporting the hypothesis of their routine use in non-atrophic edentulous sites instead of traditionally long implants, in the groove of a minimally invasive, low-stress, simplified implant therapy, with benefits for both patients and clinicians.
The ideal length of implants supporting prosthetic rehabilitations, indeed, is a relative concept that underwent a progressive reduction throughout the years from the origin of modern implantology to the present [27,45[27][29][30],56], also thanks to the outstanding progress made in the last decades in terms of constitutive materials and macro-design of dental implants, as well as of micro/nano-topographic and chemical modifications of modern implant surfaces [57,58][40][41].
The advantages of using short implants in non-atrophic sites compared to longer ones include simplified surgical management during placement, with a lower risk of involving noble anatomic structures, as well as a simplified and less invasive surgical procedure, if biological complications, over time, might require fixture removal, with the chance to leave an amount of residual bone enough for a new rehabilitation. On the other hand, due to the reduced fixture length, some conditions, such as low-density bone and operative protocols, e.g., post-extraction placement, and immediate/early loading, could reduce the reliability and predictability of this rehabilitative approach.
This is the reason, in the reseauthorchers’ opinion, because further RCTs should be performed in which all the possible relevant variables and risks are considered, analysed, and controlled in order to obtain more solid evidence on the performance of short implants in each specific clinical scenario, starting from the “low-risk” one (healed sites, good bone quality, conventional loading, splinted implants), to the others.

References

  1. Howe, M.S.; Keys, W.; Richards, D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2019, 84, 9–21.
  2. Buser, D.; Sennerby, L.; De Bruyn, H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontology 2000 2017, 73, 7–21.
  3. Chappuis, V.; Araújo, M.G.; Buser, D. Clinical relevance of dimensional bone and soft tissue alterations post-extraction in esthetic sites. Periodontology 2000 2017, 73, 73–83.
  4. Heitz-Mayfield, L.J.A.; Needleman, I.; Salvi, G.E.; Pjetursson, B.E. Consensus statements and clinical recommendations for prevention and management of biologic and technical implant complications. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 346–350.
  5. Esposito, M.; Grusovin, M.G.; Rees, J.; Karasoulos, D.; Alissa, R.; Worthington, H.V.; Coulthard, P. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2010, 3, CD008397.
  6. Fontana, F.; Maschera, E.; Rocchietta, I.; Simion, M. Clinical classification of complications in guided bone regeneration procedures by means of a nonresorbable membrane. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2011, 31, 265–273.
  7. Thoma, D.S.; Haas, R.; Tutak, M.; Garcia, A.; Schincaglia, G.P.; Hämmerle, C.H. Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11–15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: Demographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2015, 42, 72–80.
  8. Ravidà, A.; Wang, I.-C.; Barootchi, S.; Askar, H.; Tavelli, L.; Gargallo-Albiol, J.; Wang, H.L. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing clinical and patient-reported outcomes between extra-short (≤6 mm) and longer (≥10 mm) implants. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019, 46, 118–142.
  9. Nisand, D.; Renouard, F. Short implant in limited bone volume. Periodontology 2000 2014, 66, 72–96.
  10. Nisand, D.; Picard, N.; Rocchietta, I. Short implants compared to implants in vertically augmented bone: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26 (Suppl. 1), 170–179.
  11. Sanz, M.; Donos, N.; Alcoforado, G.; Balmer, M.; Gurzawska, K.; Mardas, N.; Milinkovic, I.; Nisand, D.; Rocchietta, I.; Stavropoulos, A.; et al. Therapeutic concepts and methods for improving dental implant outcomes. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO Consensus Conference 2015. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26 (Suppl. 1), 202–206.
  12. Jung, R.E.; Al-Nawas, B.; Araujo, M.; Avila-Ortiz, G.; Barter, S.; Brodala, N.; Chappuis, V.; Chen, B.; De Souza, A.; Almeida, R.F.; et al. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 69–77.
  13. Hingsammer, L.; Watzek, G.; Pommer, B. The influence of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone levels around splinted short dental implants: A radiological and clincial short term analysis. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 1090–1098.
  14. Bahat, O. Treatment planning and placement of implants in the posterior maxillae: Report of 732 consecutive Nobelpharma implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1993, 8, 151–161.
  15. Pommer, B.; Frantal, S.; Willer, J.; Posch, M.; Watzek, G.; Tepper, G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: A meta-analysis of observational studies. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2011, 38, 856–863.
  16. Camps-Font, O.; Burgueño-Barris, G.; Figueiredo, R.; Jung, R.E.; Gay-Escoda, C.; Valmaseda-Castellón, E. Interventions for Dental Implant Placement in Atrophic Edentulous Mandibles: Vertical Bone Augmentation and Alternative Treatments. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. J. Periodontol. 2016, 87, 1444–1457.
  17. Lemos, C.A.A.; Ferro-Alves, M.L.; Okamoto, R.; Mendonça, M.R.; Pellizzer, E.P. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2016, 47, 8–17.
  18. Sierra-Sánchez, J.-L.; García-Sala-Bonmatí, F.; Martínez-González, A.; García-Dalmau, C.; Mañes-Ferrer, J.F.; Brotons-Oliver, A. Predictability of short implants (<10 mm) as a treatment option for the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae. A systematic review. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 2016, 21, e392–e402.
  19. Thoma, D.S.; Zeltner, M.; Hüsler, J.; Hämmerle, C.H.; Jung, R.E. EAO Supplement Working Group 4—EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26 (Suppl. 1), 154–169.
  20. Tong, Q.; Zhang, X.; Yu, L. Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Clinical Outcomes Between Short Implants and Long Implants with Bone Augmentation Procedure. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 32, e25–e34.
  21. Toti, P.; Marchionni, S.; Menchini-Fabris, G.B.; Marconcini, S.; Covani, U.; Barone, A. Surgical techniques used in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients with atrophic posterior mandibles: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J. Cranio-Maxillo-Fac. Surg. Off. Publ. Eur. Assoc. Cranio-Maxillo-Fac. Surg. 2017, 45, 1236–1245.
  22. Torres-Alemany, A.; Fernández-Estevan, L.; Agustín-Panadero, R.; Montiel-Company, J.M.; Labaig-Rueda, C.; Mañes-Ferrer, J.F. Clinical Behavior of Short Dental Implants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3271.
  23. Palacios, J.A.V.; Garcia, J.J.; Caramês, J.M.M.; Quirynen, M.; da Silva Marques, D.N. Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 69–80.
  24. Monje, A.; Suarez, F.; Galindo-Moreno, P.; García-Nogales, A.; Fu, J.H.; Wang, H.L. A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014, 25, 1119–1124.
  25. Yu, X.; Xu, R.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Deng, F. A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥8 mm) with bone augmentation. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 8152.
  26. Fan, T.; Li, Y.; Deng, W.-W.; Wu, T.; Zhang, W. Short Implants (5 to 8 mm) Versus Longer Implants (>8 mm) with Sinus Lifting in Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 207–215.
  27. Renouard, F.; Nisand, D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2006, 17 (Suppl. 2), 35–51.
  28. Telleman, G.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Vissink, A.; den Hartog, L.; Huddleston Slater, J.J.; Meijer, H.J. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2011, 38, 667–676.
  29. Rossi, F.; Botticelli, D.; Cesaretti, G.; De Santis, E.; Storelli, S.; Lang, N.P. Use of short implants (6 mm) in a single-tooth replacement: A 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2016, 27, 458–464.
  30. Friberg, B.; Jemt, T.; Lekholm, U. Early failures in 4641 consecutively placed Brånemark dental implants: A study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1991, 6, 142–146.
  31. Barausse, C.; Felice, P.; Pistilli, R.; Buti, J.; Esposito, M. Posterior jaw rehabilitation using partial prostheses supported by implants 4.0 × 4.0 mm or longer: Three-year postloading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Clin. Trials Dent. 2019, 1, 25–36.
  32. Guida, L.; Annunziata, M.; Esposito, U.; Sirignano, M.; Torrisi, P.; Cecchinato, D. 6-mm implants for the full-arch rehabilitation of edentulous mandibles: 5-year results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2022, 49. Special issue: Abstracts EuroPerio 10, accepted.
  33. Cannizzaro, G.; Felice, P.; Ippolito, D.R.; Velasco-Ortega, E.; Esposito, M. Immediate loading of fixed cross-arch prostheses supported by flapless-placed 5 mm or 11.5 mm long implants: 5-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2018, 11, 295–306.
  34. Guljé, F.L.; Meijer, H.J.A.; Abrahamsson, I.; Barwacz, C.A.; Chen, S.; Palmer, P.J.; Zadeh, H.; Stanford, C.M. Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2021, 32, 15–22.
  35. Guida, L.; Annunziata, M.; Esposito, U.; Sirignano, M.; Torrisi, P.; Cecchinato, D. 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 Implant. Res. 2020, 31, 64–73.
  36. Weerapong, K.; Sirimongkolwattana, S.; Sastraruji, T.; Khongkhunthian, P. Comparative Study of Immediate Loading on Short Dental Implants and Conventional Dental Implants in the Posterior Mandible: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2019, 34, 141–149.
  37. Zadeh, H.H.; Guljé, F.; Palmer, P.J.; Abrahamsson, I.; Chen, S.; Mahallati, R.; Stanford, C.M. Marginal bone level and survival of short and standard-length implants after 3 years: An Open Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 894–906.
  38. Storelli, S.; Abbà, A.; Scanferla, M.; Botticelli, D.; Romeo, E. 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 Implantol. 2018, 11, 283–292.
  39. Cannizzaro, G.; Felice, P.; Buti, J.; Leone, M.; Ferri, V.; Esposito, M. Immediate loading of fixed cross-arch prostheses supported by flapless-placed supershort or long implants: 1-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2015, 8, 27–36.
  40. Aljateeli, M.; Wang, H.-L. Implant microdesigns and their impact on osseointegration. Implant Dent. 2013, 22, 127–132.
  41. Annunziata, M.; Guida, L. The Effect of Titanium Surface Modifications on Dental Implant Osseointegration. Front. Oral Biol. 2015, 17, 62–77.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback