Australian dental journal · 2021
Short implants without bone augmentation vs. long implants with bone augmentation: systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bitinas Donatas, Bardijevskyt Gail
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Anatomical limits such as the location of the lower alveolar nerve, the maxillary sinus in atrophied jaws might extend implant surgery treatment. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to review the literature and determine whether short implants can be an effective alternative to standard-length implants after bone augmentation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed on PRISMA wizard. Searched for clinical trials 2010-2020 in the Medline database. The keywords chosen are "short versus long implants, augmented bone, clinical trial", and their various variations.
RESULTS: Meta-analyses of the studies of implant loss after 1, 3 and 5 years showed a statistically insignificant difference between groups. The number of complications after 1 year was statistically significantly higher in the control group. Meta-analyses with follow-up periods of 3 and 5 years showed a statistically insignificant difference; Meta-analyses of studies of marginal bone loss after 1, 3 and 5 years showed a statistically insignificant difference between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Short dental implants may be a suitable alternative to standard length dental implants after bone augmentation. The risk of their complications is possibly lower because of the lack of need for bone augmentation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed on PRISMA wizard. Searched for clinical trials 2010-2020 in the Medline database. The keywords chosen are "short versus long implants, augmented bone, clinical trial", and their various variations.
RESULTS: Meta-analyses of the studies of implant loss after 1, 3 and 5 years showed a statistically insignificant difference between groups. The number of complications after 1 year was statistically significantly higher in the control group. Meta-analyses with follow-up periods of 3 and 5 years showed a statistically insignificant difference; Meta-analyses of studies of marginal bone loss after 1, 3 and 5 years showed a statistically insignificant difference between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Short dental implants may be a suitable alternative to standard length dental implants after bone augmentation. The risk of their complications is possibly lower because of the lack of need for bone augmentation.