Survival Rates of Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) Used as an Alternative to Longer (>6 mm) Implants for the Rehabilitation of Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review of RCTs

Abstract

Short dental implants have been proposed as an alternative treatment option to bone regeneration procedures for the rehabilitation of resorbed alveolar ridges. The aim of this paper was to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (>6 mm) in atrophic alveolar ridges in terms of implant survival rates, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), prevalence of peri-implantitis and technical complications. A thorough electronic search was performed until September 2023. RCTs with follow-up of at least 1-year post-loading comparing short implants with rough surfaces to longer implants in the posterior jaws of systemically and periodontally healthy, partially edentulous adults were considered. Studies with incomplete information on the number of patients, follow-up or definition of “short implants” were excluded. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used for Risk of bias assessment. Fixed-effects meta-analysis of the selected studies was applied to compare the outcome variables. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed, on the basis of within-study comparisons. In total, 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis and incorporated 408 short implants and 475 longer implants inserted in 317 and 388 patients, respectively. The survival rates of longer implants in pristine or augmented bone were significantly increased compared to short implants (95%CI: 2–5%, p < 0.001). Standard-length implants displayed increased, although non-statistically significant MBL (95%CI: −0.17–0.04, p > 0.05), and prevalence of peri-implantitis (95%CI: 0–5%, p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between short and long implants in terms of technical complications (implant-level 95%CI: −4–6%, p > 0.05). Short implants represent a promising alternative treatment option for the rehabilitation of posterior jaws to avoid additional bone augmentation procedures. Nonetheless, they should be selected cautiously due to a potentially limited survival rate compared to longer implants. A major limitation of this study is the variability in the included studies regarding sample size, patient profile, type of bone, loading protocol, definition of peri-implantitis, among others. This study received no external funding. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023485514).