Covered in PubMed, Scopus & SCI
pISSN 2093-2278   eISSN 2093-2286
Open Access, Peer-reviewed
    J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2022 Aug;52(4):261-281. English.
    Published online Feb 17, 2022.
    https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2007340367
    Copyright © 2022. Korean Academy of Periodontology
    Review

    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,1 Marisca Austin Pereira,1 Manjushri Waingade,2 and Shwetambari Navale1
      • 1Department of Periodontology, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital, Pune, India.
      • 2Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital, Pune, India.
    • Correspondence: Raghavendra Shrishail Medikeri. Department of Periodontology, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital, Vadgaon Budruk, Pune, Maharashtra 411041, India. Email: raghu.medikeri15@gmail.com , Tel: +91 9766337620
    Received November 11, 2020; Revised September 24, 2021; Accepted November 16, 2021.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

    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

    Graphical Abstract

    Keywords
    Dental implants; Marginal bone loss; Short dental implant; Surface treated; Survival

    INTRODUCTION

    Dental implants are the preferred treatment option for edentulous patients when complicated augmentation procedures, such as vertical/horizontal ridge augmentation or sinus lift surgery, are not involved [1]. However, patients often visit dental clinics with atrophic ridges that require the implantologist to convince the patient to undergo time-consuming, lengthy, and costly augmentation procedures. Short implants are now used as an alternative to augmentation procedures in atrophic jaws. However, short implants have been reported to have lower survival rates due to the crown-to-implant discrepancy, inability to bear the occlusal loads long-term, and reduced bone-to-implant contact [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Among the various factors that affect implant osseointegration, the surface of the implant is known to have a positive influence [7, 8]. Jemat et al. [9] stated that implant surface modification accelerates osseointegration by altering the surface energy and promoting cell proliferation and growth in the local environment. Deporter et al. [10] also reported that implant surface modification played a vital role in the success and survival of short implants. Implant surface modification can be subdivided into additive and subtractive methods [9]. Additive methods include impregnation or coating of the material, while subtractive methods increase the roughness of the surface by removing the material with different blasting substances, grits, and anodization methods [11].

    A plethora of information is available on the success rates of short implants relative to long implants. However, very little is known about the influence of implant surface modification on the survival rates of short and long implants. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to analyze the survival/success rates of different surface-treated short implants in comparison with similarly treated long implants. The null hypotheses of this meta-analysis are that no differences exist in the survival rates of surface-modified short and long implants and that no differences exist in the marginal bone level (MBL) between surface-modified short and standard implants.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Search strategy and study selection

    This systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (www.prismastatement.org). The concept of the study was submitted to and assessed by the Center for Reviews and Dissemination’s International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Reg. No. CRD42020160185).

    The research question for this systematic review was presented in the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome format.

    • • Patient (P): Partially or completely edentulous patients receiving 1 or more implants in the maxilla and/or mandible.

    • • Intervention (I): Short implants (≤8 mm) with a modified surface in the partially or completely edentulous maxilla and/or mandible.

    • • Comparison (C): Long implants (>8 mm) with a modified surface in the partially or completely edentulous maxilla and/or mandible.

    • • Outcome (O): Effect of surface modification of implants on the survival/failure of short and long implants.

    Inclusion criteria

    All titles and abstracts of the studies were examined, and relevant studies were selected. Only human, clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with the aim of contrasting surface-modified short with long implants were included. RCTs with at least 1 year of follow-up were chosen to assess the survival and failure rates of short and long implants with modified surfaces.

    Exclusion criteria

    Animal studies, retrospective or prospective studies, case reports, reviews, non-clinical studies, explanations of techniques, or clinical trials with insufficient information regarding short and long implants were not considered. Studies published in any language other than English were excluded. Studies in which the surface modification of implants was not mentioned were excluded.

    Search methods for study identification

    An electronic search was conducted to identify studies focused on the clinical performance of surface-modified short and long implants. For that purpose, the PubMed, Cochrane, Clinical Trial Registry, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) databases were searched between January 2010 and June 2021. The search protocol was restricted to the English language. The MeSH terms used in this search were “short implants” OR “short dental implant” AND “long implant” OR “long dental implant” OR “regular implant” OR “conventional implant” AND “surface coated” OR “surface treated” OR “surface modified” AND “success rate” OR “survival rate” OR “failure” AND “marginal bone loss” OR “marginal bone level” OR “periimplant bone loss” OR “periimplant bone level.” The following terms were used in an advanced Google search: all of the words “short dental implants” with at least 1 of the words “short dental implants” “long dental implants” “regular implants” “conventional surface modified surface coated.” However, no filters were used while searching the Cochrane, Science Direct, Google Scholar, or DOAJ databases.

    The titles and abstracts of the searched papers were initially screened by 2 independent reviewers for possible inclusion. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were discussed until a consensus was reached. The summary of study searches is given as a PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).

    Figure 1
    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2009) flow diagram of the search strategy.
    CTR: clinical trial registry, DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals, RCT: randomized controlled trial.

    Data including study design, number of patients, number of implants at baseline, implant length (in mm), number of short implants, number of long implants, implant surface, manufacturing company, location, duration of follow-up, number of failed short and long implants, MBL at follow-up, cumulative implant survival, and success rate were extracted from the included articles. No missing information in the included articles jeopardized the analysis of the selected studies.

    Method of analysis

    Data collection and analysis

    The relevant data from the included publications were collected in data extraction files. Prior to scoring, the rating forms were tested by all reviewers. Each reviewer first determined each study’s eligibility for inclusion in the systematic reviews, based on the reported parameters. The data from the included studies were summarized based on clinical and radiographic outcomes in the follow-up period. Two reviewers (RM and MP) evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts. If opinions diverged, the disagreements among the examiners were re-examined, and decisions were made unanimously or by a third reviewer.

    A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate whether significant differences in the survival rate and MBL existed between short and long implants with certain surface modifications. The risk ratios of implant survival rate and mean differences (MDs) in MBL were calculated using a fixed-effect model in which the heterogeneity was shown to be low (I2≤50%) and a random-effect model in which the heterogeneity was high (I2>50%). All analyses were performed with RevMan Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane, London, UK).

    Quality assessment of the articles

    The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration tool (http://ohg.cochrane.org) [11] for RCTs, which accounts for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias. The overall risk of bias for randomized trials was determined with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (Cochrane). The quality of evidence was analyzed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach with GRADEpro GDT software (McMaster University and Evidence Prime Inc., Hamilton, Canada) [12].

    RESULTS

    A systematic electronic search yielded 3,140 references, including 2,954 from PubMed/MEDLINE, 180 from Google Scholar, 6 from the Cochrane Library, and none from the DOAJ and Science Direct databases. After the removal of duplicate references and title and abstract screening, 27 full texts were screened. Twenty-two RCTs [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34] were included in the final review. Three studies did not compare surface-modified short and surface-modified long implants [35, 36, 37], and 2 articles that reported the outcomes of the same RCT at different follow-up times were counted as a single study [38, 39].

    Risk of bias and quality of evidence

    The Risk of Bias 2.0 tool indicated that all of the studies showed a low risk of bias considering random sequence generation, allocation concealment (selection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), and other sources of bias, except 4 studies with high risk of bias [19, 22, 26] due to lack of data on randomization and blinding [26, 30], missing outcome data [15], and selective reporting [14]. One study was underpowered because the data available for analysis after drop-out were not sufficient [19] (Figure 2).

    Figure 2
    Risk of bias of included studies. Green: low risk, yellow: moderate risk, red: high risk.

    According to the GRADE system, the pool of studies on implant survival rate and MBL constituted high-quality evidence (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). However, the wide confidence intervals (CIs) and high risk of bias in a small number of studies should also be considered, and the results should be interpreted with caution.

    Descriptions of the studies

    The 22 studies are summarized in Table 1 [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. All studies compared the survival rates and MBLs of surface-modified/surface-treated short vs. long implants. Certain studies provided data in the form of differences in marginal bone loss at baseline and follow-up, but such data were not used in the present meta-analysis to assess MBL. Seven studies were analyzed regarding the survival rates of short vs. long fluoride-modified implants [14, 19, 23, 28, 29, 33, 34]; however, only 5 studies could be evaluated regarding MBL [14, 23, 28, 33, 34]. Three studies used conventional sandblasted acid-etched surface implants [15, 27, 30], and 5 studies evaluated the survival rates and MBL of implants with nanostructured calcium phosphate-modified surfaces [13, 17, 20, 25, 31]. Five studies assessed the survival rates of hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched implants (209 short vs. 218 long) [18, 21, 22, 26, 32]; however, only 3 studies evaluated the MBL [18, 21, 22]. Felice et al. [16, 24] examined dual acid-etched surfaces coated with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals (with 90 short and 91 long implants), and these 2 studies were included in the meta-analysis regarding survival rate and MBL.

    Table 1
    Characteristics of all included studies

    In 1,472 patients, a total of 1,100 surface-modified short and 1,118 surface-modified long implants were evaluated. At the end of the follow-up period, 1,045 short implants and 1,094 long implants had survived (Table 2). Table 3 summarizes the details of each type of implant surface studied, including the corresponding survival rates. The mean follow-up period was 3.52±2.24 years (range, 1–10 years).

    Table 2
    Summary of survival rates of short and long implants

    Table 3
    Summary of data of implant surfaces

    Implant survival rate

    Twenty-two studies [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34] showed that 55 of 1,100 short implants and 24 of 1,118 long implants failed (Table 1). The RR for overall survival rate between the 2 groups was 2.28 and was statistically significant (Z=3.61; P=0.0003; 95% CI, 1.46, 3.57) (Table 4 and Figure 3). Surface-modified short implants showed higher failure rates than long implants. The influence of surface modification on the implants of different length was further evaluated. Only the hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched and fluoride-modified titanium oxide surfaces showed statistically significant differences in the survival rates of short vs. long implants (P=0.02; RR=3; 95% CI, 1.2, 7.48 and P=0.05; RR=3.54; 95% CI, 1.00, 12.52, respectively) (Figures 4 and 5). This indicates that hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched and titanium oxide fluoride-modified short implants failed 3 and 3.54 times more frequently, respectively, than correspondingly surface-modified long implants. The survival rates of implants with nanostructured calcium phosphate-modified surfaces (P=0.42; RR=1.38; 95% CI, 0.63, 3.01), conventional sandblasted acid-etched surfaces (P=0.10; RR=3.56; 95% CI, 0.77, 16.48), and dual acid-etched surfaces coated with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals (P=0.18; RR=2.07; 95% CI, 0.72, 5.61) were statistically insignificant between short and long implants (Figures 6, 7, 8). The wide CIs also indicate the uncertain impacts of the surface changes, which are due to the limited number of studies involving each surface. The absolute effect of the failure rate of all short implants irrespective of surface was 2.1% greater than that of the long implants (Supplementary Table 1).

    Table 4
    Summary of meta-analyses comparing survival rate of different surface modified short vs. conventional implants

    Figure 3
    Forest plot of the overall survival rate analysis of short and long implants irrespective of surface.
    RR: risk ratio, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 4
    Forest plot of the survival rate analysis of short and long implants with hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched topography.
    RR: risk ratio, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 5
    Forest plot of the survival rate analysis of short and long implants with fluoride-modified titanium oxide surfaces.
    RR: risk ratio, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 6
    Forest plot of the survival rate analysis of nanostructured calcium phosphate-modified short and long implants.
    RR: risk ratio, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 7
    Forest plot of the survival rate analysis of conventional sandblasted and acid-etched short and long implant surfaces.
    RR: risk ratio, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 8
    Forest plot of the survival rate analysis of short and long implants with dual acid-etched surfaces coated with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals.
    RR: risk ratio, CI: confidence interval.

    Marginal bone loss

    Seventeen studies [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34] assessed the differences in MBL around the implants using mean values (mm), and only the final follow-up data of the studies were used (Table 5). In all of these studies, the MBL was calculated as the linear measurement from the coronal margin of the implant shoulder to the most coronal point of bone-to-implant contact. The overall analysis showed a highly significant difference between short and standard implants (P<0.0001; MD, −0.43; 95% CI, −0.63, −0.23) with I2=97% (Figure 9). Overall, the marginal bone loss was smaller among the short implants. A statistically significant difference was observed with nanostructured calcium phosphate-modified surface implants (P=0.05; MD=−0.23; 95% CI, −0.45, −0.00); however, the results should be taken with caution, as the heterogeneity (I2) observed was 94% (Figure 10). The differences in MBL between short and long implants was statistically insignificant for titanium oxide fluoride-modified (P=0.61; MD=−0.04; 95% CI, −0.21, 0.12) and conventional sandblasted acid-etched implants (P=0.86; MD=0.03; 95% CI, −0.28, 0.34) (Figures 11 and 12). However, the assessment of the hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surface (P=0.02; MD=−0.23; 95% CI, −0.42, −0.04) and the dual acid-etched surface coated with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals (P<0.0001; MD=−0.78; 95% CI, −0.96, −0.59) revealed statistically significant differences between short and long implants (Figures 13 and 14).

    Table 5
    Summary of meta-analyses comparing marginal bone level of different surface modified short vs. conventional implants

    Figure 9
    Forest plot of the marginal bone level analysis of all short and long implants irrespective of surface.
    SD: standard deviation, MD: mean difference, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 10
    Forest plot of the marginal bone level analysis of nanostructured calcium-incorporated short and long implants.
    SD: standard deviation, MD: mean difference, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 11
    Forest plot of the implant survival rate and subgroup analysis of short and long implants with fluoride-treated nanostructured surfaces.
    SD: standard deviation, MD: mean difference, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 12
    Forest plot of the marginal bone loss analysis of short and long implants with hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surface topography.
    SD: standard deviation, MD: mean difference, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 13
    Forest plot of the marginal bone loss analysis of short and long implants with sandblasted large-grit acid-etched surfaces.
    SD: standard deviation, MD: mean difference, CI: confidence interval.

    Figure 14
    Forest plot of the marginal bone loss analysis of short and long implants with dual acid-etched surfaces coated with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals.
    SD: standard deviation, MD: mean difference, CI: confidence interval.

    Complications

    Mechanical

    Fifteen studies assessed mechanical complications, such as abutment fracture, prosthesis and screw loosening, crown failure, minor chipping and screw loosening, and prosthesis decementation [11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37] (Table 6).

    Table 6
    Data of the implant complications

    Biological

    Seventeen studies reported biological complications, such as sinus membrane perforation, abscess formation, peri-implantitis, paresthesia, nasal bleeding and headache, fracturing of the bone surrounding short implants, intraoperative hemorrhage, and mandibular graft failure [11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 32, 36] (Table 6).

    DISCUSSION

    To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to compare the survival rate and MBL between surface-treated short (≤8 mm) and long (>8 mm) implants.

    No consensus yet exists in the literature regarding the definition of short implants. In recent studies, implants of ≤8 mm were defined as short and implants of >8 mm as long or standard [40, 41]. Other researchers insist that implants 8 mm and shorter should be considered short and implants 6 mm and shorter extra-short implants [42]. Overall, the recent literature indicates that short implants have a length equal to or less than 8 mm. Thus, in this meta-analysis, we defined short implants as ≤8 mm and long implants as >8 mm. In all of the included studies, surviving implants were defined as implants that remained functional post-loading, while failed implants were those that were mobile and were removed from the patient. Innumerable studies and reviews have assessed the effects of implant length on the survival rate and MBL based on data from prior to 2010, so RCTs published in the last 11 years (2010–2021) were selected. All studies compared the survival rates and MBLs of surface-modified short vs. long implants with at least 1 year of follow-up.

    The results of this meta-analysis indicated that surface alteration influenced the impact of implant length on the survival rate and MBL. The risks of failure of hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched and fluoride-modified implants were 3 to 3.54 times greater in short than in long implants. Similarly, significantly reduced bone loss (−0.23 to −0.78 mm) was observed in short implants modified with novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surfaces, dual acid-etched surfaces coated with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals, or hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surfaces.

    The present study reports a survival rate of 95% for surface-modified short and 97.8% for surface-modified long implants, which is similar to systematic reviews that showed 93% and 99% survival rates for short and long implants, respectively [43, 44]. However, the present study reports an additional effect or improvement of surface modification on the survival rate of short implants. Histologic studies have shown that the surface modification of implants may positively affect osseointegration, but the overall implant survival rate is also affected by various clinical confounding factors, including prosthetic loading, bone quality, and crown-to-implant ratio.

    Each type of implant surface modification has a demonstrated functional role. For example, a calcium phosphate dual acid-etched surface exhibits low bacterial adherence, a fluoride-modified surface promotes short healing time and facilitates early loading, and a hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surface has been shown to have high surface energy [45]. The present review reports that hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surface topography has a positive effect on the success/survival rate of implants irrespective of length; however, nothing can be definitely concluded on the effect of hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surface topography modification on the survival rates of short vs. long implants [18, 21, 22, 26, 32]. The MBLs of short and long implants with hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surfaces were improved due to the high surface energy and improved wettability of that topography [45, 46].

    The reasons for the failures of short and long implants were not specified in most of the studies. However, a few studies reported the reasons for the failure of short implants as “early failures” (caused by chronic sinus infection with loss of integration/implant stability) and type IV bone quality [18]. Also, data regarding failed short and long implants over follow-up periods of 1, 5, 8, and 10 years in some studies indicated that most of the implant failures occurred in the first year of loading; no differences were present in the implant failure rate at the end of 5 or 10 years of follow-up compared to 1 year of follow-up [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34].

    The external validity of the present study regarding the MBL indicates relatively low generalizability to similar populations. The substantial heterogeneity observed in the MBL was present because most studies have reported superior MBL around short implants, and few have done so for long implants. This is a limitation of the present study. Zadeh et al. [29] reported a maximum of 1 mm of bone loss around short implants and 1–3 mm of bone loss around long implants at 3 years. The author reported that this could be due to increased generation of heat during surgery with deeper osteotomy preparation, stress shielding, or a manifestation of the more crestal position of the head of the long implant.

    The majority of studies have compared the outcomes of short and long implant placement in conjunction with vertical augmentation/maxillary sinus lift procedures. These studies have demonstrated that the survival rates and MBLs associated with surface-modified short implants are comparable to those associated with longer implants placed in sites with vertical ridge or maxillary sinus augmentation. However, patients with long implants had a higher frequency of complications and graft failure, thereby affecting the overall survival rate associated with long implants. Therefore, short implants have emerged as a viable alternative with lower morbidity and a lower surgical complication rate.

    When other variables that can influence osteointegration are taken into account (for instance, the selection of appropriate-diameter [wider] implants and the resting of the flared neck below the crestal bone level in implants placed in type III or IV bone), implant length is not a confounding factor for survival rate. The use of short implants with poor bone quality (type IV) has been identified in a few studies.

    The present meta-analysis included studies with good study design and analysis, indicating that these RCTs have high internal and external validity, as measured by the GRADE score. However, due to the imprecision and uncertainty of the included RCTs, MBL analyses should be extrapolated with caution. When evaluating the effect of surface treatment on variations in implant length, we did not take into account the effects of smoking, implant diameter, platform switching or matching, bone quality, or mechanical or biological complications. Future studies should also compare the survival rates of surface-modified short and long implants not placed in conjugation with augmentation procedures.

    In conclusions, this study describes the impact of surface modification on the survival rate and MBL in implants of different lengths. For implants with fluoride-modified and hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surfaces, long implants have better survival rates than short implants. Short implants with novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surfaces, hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surfaces, and dual acid-etched surfaces coated with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals showed reduced marginal bone loss relative to longer implants of the same surface types. In certain cases in which extensive augmentation procedures are needed, short implants may still be an alternative to long implants, as augmentation procedures increase the risk of complications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

    Supplementary Table 1

    GRADE score of survival rate of surface modified short and long implants

    Click here to view.(32K, xls)

    Supplementary Table 2

    GRADE score of marginal bone level of surface modified short and long implants

    Click here to view.(41K, xls)

    Notes

    Conflict of Interest:No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

    Author Contributions:

    • Conceptualization: Raghavendra Shrishail Medikeri, Marisca Austin Pereira.

    • Formal analysis: Raghavendra Shrishail Medikeri, Marisca Austin Pereira, Manjushri Waingade.

    • Investigation: Raghavendra Shrishail Medikeri, Shwetambari Navale, Manjushri Waingade.

    • Methodology: Raghavendra Shrishail Medikeri, Marisca Austin Pereira, Shwetambari Navale.

    • Project administration: Raghavendra Shrishail Medikeri, Manjushri Waingade.

    • Writing - original draft: Raghavendra Shrishail Medikeri, Marisca Austin Pereira.

    • Writing - review & editing: Raghavendra Shrishail Medikeri, Marisca Austin Pereira, Shwetambari Navale, Manjushri Waingade.

    References

      1. Romeo E, Bivio A, Mosca D, Scanferla M, Ghisolfi M, Storelli S. The use of short dental implants in clinical practice: literature review. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:23–31.
      1. 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 1991;6:270–276.
      1. Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Lindén U, Bergström C, et al. Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:639–645.
      1. 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.
      1. Karthikeyan I, Desai SR, Singh R. Short implants: a systematic review. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:302–312.
      1. Morand M, Irinakis T. The challenge of implant therapy in the posterior maxilla: providing a rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 2007;33:257–266.
      1. Nisand D, Renouard F. Short implant in limited bone volume. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:72–96.
      1. Novaes AB Jr, de Souza SL, de Barros RR, Pereira KK, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Influence of implant surfaces on osseointegration. Braz Dent J 2010;21:471–481.
      1. Jemat A, Ghazali MJ, Razali M, Otsuka Y. Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015:791725
      1. Deporter D. Short dental implants: what works and what doesn’t? A literature interpretation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:457–464.
      1. Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). London: Cochrane; 2020.
      1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383–394.
      1. Pistilli R, Felice P, Piattelli M, Gessaroli M, Soardi E, Barausse C, et al. 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 2013;6:343–357.
      1. Guljé F, Abrahamsson I, Chen S, Stanford C, Zadeh H, Palmer R. 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 2013;24:1325–1331.
      1. Romeo E, Storelli S, Casano G, Scanferla M, Botticelli D. 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 2014;7:371–381.
      1. Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Esposito M. 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 2014;7:359–369.
      1. Esposito M, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Felice P. 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 2014;7:383–395.
      1. Rossi F, Botticelli D, Cesaretti G, De Santis E, Storelli S, Lang NP. 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 2016;27:458–464.
      1. Schincaglia GP, Thoma DS, Haas R, Tutak M, Garcia A, Taylor TD, et al. 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 2015;42:1042–1051.
      1. Bechara S, Kubilius R, Veronesi G, Pires JT, Shibli JA, Mangano FG. 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 2017;28:1097–1107.
      1. Nedir R, Nurdin N, Abi Najm S, El Hage M, Bischof M. Short implants placed with or without grafting into atrophic sinuses: the 5-year results of a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:877–886.
      1. Sahrmann P, Naenni N, Jung RE, Held U, Truninger T, Hämmerle CH, et al. Success of 6-mm implants with single-tooth restorations: a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2016;95:623–628.
      1. Pohl V, Thoma DS, Sporniak-Tutak K, Garcia-Garcia A, Taylor TD, Haas R, et al. 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 2017;44:438–445.
      1. Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. 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 2018;11:385–395.
      1. Gastaldi G, Felice P, Pistilli V, Barausse C, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. 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 2018;11:49–61.
      1. Naenni N, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Attin T, Wiedemeier DB, Sapata V, et al. Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2018;97:887–892.
      1. 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 Implantology 2018;11:283–292.
      1. Thoma DS, Haas R, Sporniak-Tutak K, Garcia A, Taylor TD, Hämmerle CH. 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 2018;45:1465–1474.
      1. Zadeh HH, Guljé F, Palmer PJ, Abrahamsson I, Chen S, Mahallati R, et al. 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 2018;29:894–906.
      1. Shah SN, Chung J, Kim DM, Machtei EE. Can extra-short dental implants serve as alternatives to bone augmentation? A preliminary longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial. Quintessence Int 2018;49:635–643.
      1. Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. 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) 2019;12:25–37.
      1. Shi JY, Li Y, Qiao SC, Gu YX, Xiong YY, Lai HC. Short versus longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation for moderately atrophic posterior maxillae: a 1-year randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46:855–862.
      1. 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 Implants Res 2020;31:64–73.
      1. Hadzik J, Kubasiewicz-Ross P, Nawrot-Hadzik I, Gedrange T, Pitułaj A, Dominiak M. Short (6 mm) and regular dental implants in the posterior maxilla-7-years follow-up study. J Clin Med 2021;10:940.
      1. Esposito M, Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Grandi G, Simion 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 2015;8:387–396.
      1. Glibert M, Vervaeke S, Jacquet W, Vermeersch K, Östman PO, De Bruyn H. A randomized controlled clinical trial to assess crestal bone remodeling of four different implant designs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:455–462.
      1. Yu H, Wang X, Qiu L. 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 2017;19:111–122.
      1. Shi JY, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Zhuang LF, Zhang XM, Lai HC. 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 2015;16:324.
      1. Hadzik J, Krawiec M, Kubasiewicz-Ross P, Prylinska-Czyzewska A, Gedrange T, Dominiak M. Short implants and conventional implants in limited height alveolar ridge. Med Sci Monit 2018;24:5645–5652.
      1. Lemos CA, Ferro-Alves ML, Okamoto R, Mendonça MR, Pellizzer EP. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;47:8–17.
      1. Altaib FH, Alqutaibi AY, Al-Fahd A, Eid S. 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 2019;50:636–650.
      1. Lin ZZ, Jiao YQ, Ye ZY, Wang GG, Ding X. 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 2021;7:41.
      1. Rossi F, Lang NP, Ricci E, Ferraioli L, Marchetti C, Botticelli D. 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 2015;26:471–477.
      1. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (< 10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:191–213.
      1. Mezzomo LA, Miller R, Triches D, Alonso F, Shinkai RS. Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:191–213.
      1. Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, Beck-Broichsitter B, Jung O, Precht C, et al. Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:6285620
    Cited by
    Crossref 5
    Google Scholar 
    PubMed Central 3
    Scopus 5
    Web of Science 3
    MeSH Terms
    Bias
    Calcium
    Dental Implants
    Directory
    Exhibition
    Follow-Up Studies*
    Humans
    Jaw
    Oxides
    Phosphates
    Prospective Studies
    Survival Rate
    Systematic Review*
    Titanium
    Metrics
    Share
    Links to
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 14

    Tables
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 6

    ORCID IDs
    PERMALINK