Clinical performance of short and extrashort dental implants with wide diameter: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:Rehabilitation with wide-diameter reduced-length implants has become popular for patients with minimal vertical bone. However, a consensus on the benefits of this approach is lacking. PURPOSE:The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of wide compared with regular diameter on the clinical performance of short (<10 mm) and extrashort (≤6 mm) dental implants used for rehabilitations with single crowns, fixed partial dentures, or both, in the posterior region. MATERIAL AND METHODS:A search in 6 databases was conducted to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (N-RCTs). Five meta-analyses were performed, where the risk ratio (RR) was evaluated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated, and the risk of bias was determined from the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. RESULTS:Fourteen articles were included, 272 wide- and 478 regular-diameter implants. One study presented a low, 3 an unclear, and 11 a high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no statistical difference: implant survival, short dental implants in N-RCTs (up to 1 year - RR 1.01 [0.98; 1.03], 1 to 5 years - RR 1.01 [0.94; 1.08], more than 5 years - RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.06]), extrashort dental implants in N-RCTs (RR 1.04 [0.90; 1.20]), RCTs (RR 1.05 [0.88; 1.25]); implant success in N-RCTs (RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.05]); prosthesis success in N-RCTs (RR 1.01 [0.97; 1.05]). CONCLUSIONS:Short and extrashort dental implants with a wide and regular diameter appear to be clinically appropriate options for implant-supported posterior restorations, with high survival, success, and prosthesis success rates.