TY - JOUR
T1 - Short implants (≤8 mm) compared to standard length implants (>8 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Nielsen, H. B.
AU - Schou, Søren
AU - Isidor, F
AU - Christensen, A-E
AU - Starch-Jensen, T.
N1 - Copyright © 2018 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/2
Y1 - 2019/2
N2 - The objective was to test the hypothesis of no difference in the treatment outcome after the installation of short implants (≤8mm) in the posterior part of the maxilla compared to standard length implants (>8mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) using the lateral window technique, after an observation period of ≥3years. A search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals, was conducted. The search yielded 1102 titles. Finally, three studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. All were considered to have a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses revealed no significant differences in implant survival or peri-implant marginal bone loss between the two treatment modalities. However, the use of standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA was characterized by a tendency towards more peri-implant marginal bone loss. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment modalities with regard to overall patient satisfaction. Short implants seem to be a suitable alternative to standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. However, further randomized controlled trials with larger patient samples and an observation period of more than 3years are needed before one treatment modality might be considered superior to the other.
AB - The objective was to test the hypothesis of no difference in the treatment outcome after the installation of short implants (≤8mm) in the posterior part of the maxilla compared to standard length implants (>8mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) using the lateral window technique, after an observation period of ≥3years. A search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals, was conducted. The search yielded 1102 titles. Finally, three studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. All were considered to have a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses revealed no significant differences in implant survival or peri-implant marginal bone loss between the two treatment modalities. However, the use of standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA was characterized by a tendency towards more peri-implant marginal bone loss. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment modalities with regard to overall patient satisfaction. Short implants seem to be a suitable alternative to standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. However, further randomized controlled trials with larger patient samples and an observation period of more than 3years are needed before one treatment modality might be considered superior to the other.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.05.010
DO - 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.05.010
M3 - Review
C2 - 29980321
SN - 0901-5027
VL - 48
SP - 239
EP - 249
JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
IS - 2
ER -