Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Comparing short implants to standard dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled
Hamid Kermanshah1, Abbasali Keshtkar2, Ali Hassani3
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Purpose:
To compare the difference of marginal level changes (MBL), implant failure (IF), biological and prosthetic complications (BC and PC), and prosthetic failure (PF) of short implants (SH) and standard implants (ST).
Materials And Methods:
Electronic searches (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov) and manual searches were performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SH to ST. Applying Stata, a meta-analysis was conducted on the weighted mean difference (WMD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) of MBL and the risk difference (RD) of the secondary outcome.
Results:
Twenty-four articles were involved in the present study. There were statistically significant differences in MBLs, preferring short implants in the maxilla (WMD: -0.147 (CI: -0.224, -0.070), I2: 76.6%; SMD: -0.757 (CI: -1.226, -0.289), I2: 89.2%) and in the mandible (WMD: -0.377 (CI: -0.656, -0.098), I2: 85.8%; SMD: -0.811 (CI: -1.418, -0.204), I2: 78.8%). There were no significant differences in IF (RD: 0.011 (-0.002, 0.023), I2: 0.0%), PF (RD:0.003 (-0.007, 0.014), I2: 0.0%), and PC (RD:0.001 (-0.008, 0.010), I2: 0.0%). There were significantly higher biological complications (RD: -0.071 (-0.106, -0.036), I2: 0.82.9%) for ST compared to SH in both jaws up to a 10-year follow-up.
Conclusion:
SH and ST had comparable overall outcomes, but short implants had less marginal bone loss and lower biological complications. However, more research is needed to confirm these findings.
