Meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing clinical and patient‐reported outcomes between extra‐short (≤6 mm) and longer (≥10 mm) implants

Abstract Aim To compare the clinical outcomes of ≤6 mm extra‐short implants (test group) versus ≥10 mm long implants (control group), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Materials and Methods A systemic literature search of randomized clinical trials was performed using the PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases. A quantitative meta‐analysis was conducted to compare all the outcome variables. Meta‐regression analysis determined the effect of bone augmentation procedures and the influence of other clinical covariates on the results. Results Eighteen studies comprising 1,612 implants (793 extra‐short and 820 long implants) were selected for the meta‐analysis. No statistically significant difference in the survival rate was observed at 1 and 3 years ( p > 0.05). Extra‐short implants displayed less marginal bone loss (MBL) from both implant placement time points (1 and 3 years) and prosthetic placement (1 year), as well as less biological complications, surgical time and treatment cost ( p < 0.05). Contrarily, a statistically significant small number of prosthetic complications were reported with long implants ( p < 0.05). Conclusions Placement of extra‐short implants (≤6 mm) presented as an equivalent option in the treatment of patients with an atrophic posterior arch up to 3‐year follow‐up. However, the long‐term effectiveness of extra‐short dental implants remains to be further studied.