Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 30, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Augmentation of the alveolar ridge compared with shorter implants in atrophic jaws: a meta-analysis based on
Jing Yang1, Zhigang Cheng2, Bin Shi3
1The State key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology (Hubei-MOST) and Key Laboratory for Oral Biomedical Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, 237 Luoyu road, Wuhan, 430079, People's Republic of China; The Central Hospital of Wuhan, 26 Shengli street, Wuhan, 430014, People's Republic of China.
Abstract:
Our aim was to compare two therapeutic options--augmentation of the alveolar ridge and shorter implants--in the treatment of atrophic jaws. To fulfill the preset inclusion criteria, we searched the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE through OVID, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Two people were responsible for screening, extraction of data, and assessment of quality. The meta-analysis was made with the aid of Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). The electronic database and manual search yielded 1426 studies. After screening the titles, abstract, and the full text, and cross-matched them with the inclusion criteria, only 6 studies were eligible. A total of 837 implants were investigated, which included 429 in the augmentation group and 408 in the shorter implants group. There were significantly more failed implants (p=0.006), complications (p=0.01), and marginal bone losses (p=0.0004) in the augmentation group than in the shorter implants group. According to the GRADE, the levels of evidence were moderate (failed implants), high (complication rate), and high (loss of alveolar bone). In atrophic jaws with enough residual bone, shorter implants without augmentation might be the first choice as they seem to be associated with fewer failed implants and complications, and less peri-implant bone loss.
