Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

Four-year assessment of masticatory function in mandibular overdenture wearers: A randomised clinical trial comparing two to four implants to retain the prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on the mid- to long-term masticatory capacity of mandibular overdenture (IOD) wearers, particularly regarding the use of posterior implants to retention.

OBJECTIVES

To periodically evaluate mastication of IOD wearers, comparing the effectiveness of two to four implants to retain the prosthesis.

METHODS

In a randomised controlled clinical trial, 20 complete edentulous patients (14 women), aged 51-84 years (mean age 69.1 ± 9.6), received new bimaxillary complete dentures (CD). After adaptation, baseline measurements of masticatory performance (X50) and swallowing threshold were conducted using the sieving method. Patients were then randomly assigned to groups: control (two intra-foraminal regular implants) and experimental (two intra-foraminal regular implants and two extra-short posterior implants) (n = 10 each). After 4 months, implants were splinted, and a new mandibular IOD was fabricated with bar/clip retention. Mastication was reassessed after 6, 12, and 48 months, and data analysed with repeated measures ANOVA and Sidak's post hoc (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Despite a loss of two patients per group, masticatory performance significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation (p = .031) in both groups (p = .670). A second improvement was observed after 6 months (p = .027), with no subsequent changes (p > .05). Swallowing threshold improvements were noted with IOD, and no discernible differences between groups were observed (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Masticatory function significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation, with the number of implants demonstrating minimal influence.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present study was not registered in a public database, as mandated. It is important to note that the recommendation for registration was initiated in 2017 by the Committee of Medical Journal Editors, while patient inclusion in the research took place in 2016. Given that the data presented in this manuscript cover a follow-up period of up to 4 years post-surgical intervention, delayed registration was not feasible.

Clinical efficacy of extra-short implant (4 mm) placed in posterior areas: a Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of 4 mm-extra-short implant (ESI) placement in severely atrophic posterior areas.

METHODS

Databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang from January 1, 2010, until August 31, 2022, were searched to identify randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials related to ESI and standard implants (SI). An additional hand search of the references of included articles was also conducted. Meta-analyses were carried out with RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included, involving six randomized controlled trials and five controlled clinical trials. The meta-analyses indicated that when implants were placed in the posterior area, the implant survival rate between ESI and SI did not significantly differ [RR=1.23, 95%CI (0.66, 2.27), P=0.52]. ESI resulted in significantly stable marginal bone level [MD=-0.16, 95%CI (-0.25,-0.07), P=0.000 7] and less biological complications [RR=0.34, 95%CI (0.19, 0.62), P=0.000 4] but more mechanical complications [RR=2.89, 95%CI (1.05, 7.92), P=0.04].

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited evidence, ESI could achieve clinical outcomes similar to those of SI when the height of the posterior alveolar bone is less than 5 mm, with lower technical sensitivity and fewer postoperative clinical complications than SI. Due to insufficient evidence and limited sample size, further clinical trials are needed to verify the long-term efficacy of ESI.

Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

In edentulous patients, bone resorption cannot allow the installation of standard implants and it is demanded to use short implants in the residual alveolar bone or longer implants in grafted bone.

AIM

To compare the survival and bone level changes of standard plus short 4-mm implants used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with standard (10-mm) implants placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Full-arch FDPs supported by six implants were randomly placed in both groups. In the control group, all implants were 10 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. The distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was installed after 4 months from bilaterally sinus floor elevation. In the test group (short group), the distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was 4 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. No sinus floor elevations were performed in the test group. Clinical assessments and X-rays were taken at prosthesis delivering and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also evaluated before surgery and after 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

The changes over time of the bone level for the short implants were -0.01 ± 0.11 mm, -0.04 ± 0.13 mm, -0.17 ± 0.29 mm, and -0.28 ± 0.37 mm after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from prosthesis delivering, respectively. For the standard implants, bone changes were -0.21 ± 0.33 mm (p = 0.103), -0.30 ± 0.32 mm (p = 0.023), -0.40 ± 0.37 mm (p = 0.144), and -0.54 ± 0.49 mm (p = 0.128), respectively. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar results on implant survival rate and marginal bone loss were observed for the short and standard implants, placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure, used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch FDP. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups (p = 0.023).