Purpose: To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of ≤6-mm implants with those of ≥10-mm implants placed after both lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation.
Materials and methods: Using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane, a literature search for randomized controlled trials was performed. All the outcome variables were evaluated through a quantitative meta-analysis, and the influence of other clinical covariates were determined with a metaregression. For the survival outcomes, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to adjust results for type I and II errors and to analyze the power of the available evidence.
Results: After full-text reading, 12 studies were included in the analyses. No statistically significant difference was found after 3 years between the 2 study groups (P = 0.36). Short implants displayed fewer biological complications (P = 0.05), less marginal bone loss (MBL) from implant placement (P < 0.01), and reduced surgical time and treatment cost. However, long implants showed a statistically significant smaller number of prosthetic complications (P = 0.03). TSA confirmed the results of the meta-analysis, revealing that additional studies are needed due to low statistical power of the available evidence.
Conclusion: The placement of short implants is a predictable option in treating patients with maxillary atrophy up to a 3-year follow-up. Studies with a longer observational period are needed to study the long-term performance of these implants.
Purpose: The primary aim of this randomized, controlled, blinded, clinical trial was to compare a mix of particulate allograft and harvested autogenous particles (Autogenous) to an osteoinductive demineralized bone matrix (DBM) allograft on clinical and histologic outcomes for horizontal ridge augmentation procedure.
Materials and methods: Fourteen patients with a horizontal ridge defect with at least 1 adjacent tooth were entered into this study. The test group of 7 subjects received corticocancellous particulate allograft (Mineross) mixed with autogenous bone chips (70:30) harvested using a bone scraper (SafeScraper TWIST). Seven subjects in the control group received DBM (Optecure-CCC). Both groups had a corticocancellous particulate allograft overlay and an acellular dermis membrane (ADMG) (AlloDerm GBR) to cover the grafts.
Results: For the Autogenous group, there was a gain of 3.5 ± 1.4 mm while the DBM group gained 3.8 ± 1.6 mm (P < 0.05). Vertical change was minimal for both groups (P > 0.05). The Autogenous group had a mean of 35% vital bone while the DBM had 39% (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: Both treatments provided similar gain of ridge width and minimal loss of ridge height. The autogenous bone chips did not provide any additional benefit when compared with allograft alone that had lot verified osteoinductive activity.
Background: During implantation planning, dentists should be able to make an informed decision regarding whether to use an implant template to assist the surgery.
Purpose: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the results of implantation with or without an implant template based on the accuracy, survival rate, and other considerations.
Materials and methods: In January 2018, a systematic review was undertaken for randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective cohort studies with relevance to implant accuracy and the survival rate between the implant template and free-hand method. The odds ratios (ORs) of the survival rate and the mean difference of accuracy deviation from the selected papers were estimated by meta-analysis.
Results: Of the 362 screened articles, 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of the survival rate of implant surgery with or without an implant template revealed no significant result (OR = 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-4.51). Significant differences in accuracy were observed in angular (mean difference = -5.45 degrees, 95% CI -0.66 to -4.24 degrees) and apical deviation (mean difference = -0.83 mm, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.54).
Conclusions: With the technology of computer-aided surgical template, implant placement can be more accurate than free-hand operation. No significant difference is observed in the survival rate between template and free-hand.