• Users Online: 137
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
REVIEW
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 28-44

The rehabilitation of posterior atrophic maxilla by using the graftless option of short implant versus conventional long implant with sinus graft: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trial


1 Department of Prosthodontics, MGVs KBH Dental College and Hospital, Nashik, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Public Health Dentistry, MGVs KBH Dental College and Hospital, Nashik, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Royal College of Surgeons England, Britannia Dental Surgery, Newport, UK
4 Department of Prosthodontics, MIDSR Dental College, Latur, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Sachin Haribhau Chaware
Department of Prosthodontics, MGVs KBH Dental College and Hospital, Nashik - 422 001, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_400_20

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The purpose of systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of short implant versus conventional long implant with sinus graft in patients rehabilitated for posterior atrophic maxilla. Setting and Design: Systematic review and meta analysis. Materials and Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in Pub Med, Embase, and Medline with supplemented by manual search up to December 2019. The randomized controlled trial (RCTs) comparing short implant (<8.5 mm) and long implant (>8.5 mm) with sinus graft were included. (Prospero CRD42020186972). Statistical Analysis Used: Random-effect model, fixed-effect model, A funnel plot and the Egger's test. Results: Twenty-two Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed with 667 patients and 1595 implants (short implant:767, Long implant:835). No significant difference of implant survival rate was recorded for short and long implant (at patient level: RR: 1.01, 95% CI = 0.52-2.0, P = 0.87, I2 = 0%, at implant level RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.6-2.0, P = 0.7, I2 = 0%). Similarly marginal bone resorption was reported no difference for short and long implant (MD = 0.16. 95% CI: -0.23 = -0.08, P = 0.00, I2 = 74.83%). Biological complications were marginally higher for long implant (RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.23-0.8, P = 0.13, I2 = 29.11%). and prosthetic complications were marginally higher for short implants (RR=1.56, 95% CI=0.85-3.15, P = 0.43, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: There was no significance difference in implant survival rate and marginal bone resorption recorded for both the short implant and long implant with sinus graft, in the patients rehabilitated with posterior atrophic maxilla. Hence, short implant is a suitable alternative to long implant with sinus graft, for the rehabilitation posterior atrophic maxilla.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1342    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded124    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal