Ten-year outcomes of short dental implants (≤ 6 mm): a systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the ten-year survival rates (SR), complication rates, and marginal bone loss (MBL) of short dental implants (≤ 6 mm).

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of short dental implants with ten years of follow-up were included. Both single-group meta-analyses and paired-comparison meta-analyses were conducted utilizing the statistical software R version 4.3.1. An interpolation model was employed to handle missing data for the sensitivity meta-analysis of SR. The number of PROSPERO was CRD42024522613.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies (4 RCTs and 4 prospective) were included. The single-group meta-analyses encompassed 8 studies. The pooled estimate of 10-year SR was 91.2% (95% CI: 0.843-0.965) at the patient level (PL) and 93.7% (95% CI: 0.878-0.980) at the implant level (IL). Sensitivity meta-analysis estimates were 89.7% (PL) and 92.8% (IL). Subgroup analyses revealed that screw retention implants had lower SR than cemented retention. The incidence of technical complications was 23.5%, while biological complications included peri-implant mucositis (33.6%) and peri-implantitis (0.4%). The pooled MBL estimates over ten years were 0.277 mm for both the PL and IL. Paired-comparison meta-analyses of four RCTs showed that short implants had a significantly lower 10-year SR than long implants (RR, 0.920 (95% CI: 0.857-0.987) at the PL and RR, 0.943 (95% CI: 0.896-0.992) at the IL), but no significant differences were observed in technical, biological complications, or MBL.

CONCLUSION

For patients with jawbone atrophy, short implants may represent a viable long-term treatment option, although their 10-year survival rate is slightly lower than that of standard implants. However, given the limitations of this study, the above conclusions and their clinical implications should be interpreted with caution.