Short (≤ 8 mm) dental implants: An overview of systematic reviews

5KQ94 ePOSTER BASIC RESEARCH

Background: Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been published in regards to the performance of short implants, especially in recent years. However, a general synthesis and evaluation of these SRs have not yet been carried out.

Aim/Hypothesis: Summarize the available evidence and answer the following focused question: “What do we know so far about short implants performance in comparison to standard length implants”?

Materials and Methods: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. The searches were conducted in six electronic databases: Cochrane, Embase, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. In addition, the grey literature and hand search was performed. Studies included in this overview were systematic reviews and meta-analysis that investigated the performance of short dental implants (≤ 8 mm) comparing to standard implants. The outcomes were marginal bone loss, implant survival/failure, prosthetic survival/complications, biological complications, costs, surgical time, and patient satisfaction. The study selection and the data collection were performed by two independent reviewers. A qualitative synthesis of the results was performed. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the AMSTAR II tool.

Results: Twenty-one systematic reviews were included. The short implants presented less marginal bone loss and less biological complications. Prosthetic survival/complications outcome and implant survival/failure rate were similar for both groups. Fewer costs, reduced surgical time and more satisfaction favored short implants. The confidence evaluation of the included systematic reviews was stratified as moderate (01), low confidence (05) and critically low confidence (15), according to AMSTAR II.

Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Within an overall low to very low confidence levels short implants seem to show more favorable outcomes than standard implants in relation to marginal bone loss, biological complications, treatment costs, surgical time, and patient satisfaction. Regarding implant survival/failure and prosthetic survival/complication rates, this overview was not able to identify a significant difference between short and standard implants.

Acknowledgements: Edwin Ruales-Carrera and Patrícia Pauletto are supported by CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel), Ministry of Education, Brazil.

Keywords: short implants, systematic review, overview