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

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.