Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10‐mm dental implants in different clinical scenarios: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta‐analysis, trial sequential analysis and quality of evidence grading

Abstract

AbstractAimTo systematically identify, synthesize and critically summarize the available scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding whether short (≤6 mm) perform as well as long (≥10 mm) implants regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complications in different clinical scenarios.Materials and MethodsCochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were applied. Results were synthesized using random‐effects meta‐analyses assessed by trial sequential analyses.ResultsForty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included. Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5‐year survival rates for ≤6‐mm and ≥10‐mm implants in non‐augmented bone and full‐mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6‐mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift. Nevertheless, the evidence for 5‐year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4‐mm and 5‐mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants. Marginal bone level and short‐ and long‐term biologic or prosthetic complications were similar.ConclusionsBased on moderate/high certainty/quality evidence from 5‐year RCTs, implants ≤6 mm may be viable alternatives to ≥10‐mm implants in either jaw in native bone and full‐arch rehabilitation, and 6‐mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift. Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.