Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 1, 2025
Surgical Bone Implantation Technique for Rat Tibia Models of Diabetes and Osteoporosis
Published on: July 5, 2024
Survival Rates of Splinted and Nonsplinted Prostheses Supported by Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm): A Systematic
Qiu-Lan Li1,2, Mian-Feng Yao3, Ruo-Yan Cao1,2
1Hospital of Stomatology, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Purpose:
To evaluate and compare the implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, and mechanical complications of prostheses supported by splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm).
Material And Methods:
Electronic database (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and EMBASE) and manual searches up to May 2021 were conducted to identify studies comparing splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm). The primary outcome was implant survival rate. Secondary outcomes were marginal bone loss and mechanical complications. The quality of included studies and risk-of-bias were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used to analyze the data.
Results:
Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and featured 1506 short implants (596 nonsplinted and 910 splinted) with a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 16 years. Quantitative analysis found no statistically significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) for survival rate (RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 1.01; p = 0.26)) and marginal bone loss (SMD = -0.08; 95% CI - 0.23, 0.07; p = 0.28). Veneer chipping, abutment screw breakage, screw loosening, and loss of retention were reported in the selected studies as common complications. However, no statistically significant difference was found between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.20, 1.54; p = 0.26).
Conclusions:
Within the limitations of the present meta-analysis, it might be concluded that splinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) do not present superior performance in survival rate, marginal bone maintenance and prevention of mechanical complications compared with single-unit prostheses.
