Short implants versus longer implants with maxillary sinus lift. A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Main Authors: Ronaldo Silva CRUZ (Author), Cleidiel Aparecido de Araújo LEMOS (Author), Victor Eduardo de Souza BATISTA (Author), Hiskell Francine Fernandes e OLIVEIRA (Author), Jéssica Marcela de Luna GOMES (Author), Eduardo Piza PELLIZZER (Author), Fellippo Ramos VERRI (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2018-09-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1807-3107; 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0086
• Keywords: Dental Implants; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Prosthesis Failures; Meta-Analysis; Dentistry; RK1-715
• Source: Brazilian Oral Research, Vol 32, Iss 0 (2018)

Abstract This study compared the survival rate of dental implants, amount of marginal bone loss, and rates of complications (biological and prosthetic) between short implants and long implants placed after maxillary sinus augmentation. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number (CRD42017073929). Two reviewers searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials, comparisons between short implants and long implants placed after maxillary sinus augmentation in the same study, and follow-up for >6 months. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. The search identified 1366 references. After applying the inclusion criteria, 11 trials including 420 patients who received 911 dental implants were considered eligible. No significant difference was observed in the survival rate [p = 0.86; risk ratio (RR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-2.52] or in the amount of marginal bone loss (p = 0.08; RR: −0.05; 95%CI: −0.10 to 0.01). However, higher rates of biological complications for long implants associated with maxillary sinus augmentation were observed (p < 0.00001; RR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.10-0.41), whereas a higher prosthetic complication rate for short implants was noted (p = 0.010; RR: 3.15; 95%CI: 1.32-7.51). Short implant placement is an effective alternative because of fewer biological complications and similar survival and marginal bone loss than long implant placement with maxillary sinus augmentation. However, the risk of mechanical complications associated with the prostheses fitted on short implants should be considered.