impact of implant length on survival of rough-surface

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1359

©2019 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.

The global shift in the dental field toward mini-mally invasive approaches has enabled enhanced

patient care with decreased postoperative pain and healing duration. The current widespread use of short implants stems from this phenomenon. The definition of short implants has been variable throughout the

last decade, gradually evolving to decreased lengths. In 2013, Monje and coworkers defined a short implant as being ≤ 10 mm in length.1 Today, ≤ 6 mm is classi-fied as either a short2 or extra-short3,4 implant. When applied in cases of atrophic arches, complexities as-sociated with more invasive surgical procedures, such as maxillary sinus floor elevation (SFE), guided bone regeneration, onlay bone grafts, distraction osteogen-esis, and inferior alveolar nerve transpositioning are avoided.5 Consequently, the use of short implants has been positively correlated with a reduction in biologic complications, overall chair time, total cost,6 and posi-tive patient-reported outcomes.7

The clinical performance of short implants com-pared with bone augmentation and long implants in atrophic sites has been assessed through several ran-domized clinical trials. In the maxilla, Pohl and cowork-ers compared 6-mm implants vs long dental implants (11 to 15 mm) in combination with SFE in 101 patients. Following a 3-year observational period, the survival rate was 100% in both groups.8 In the mandible, Es-posito and coworkers evaluated whether or not 5-mm implants are a viable alternative to 10-mm implants

1Graduate Student, Graduate Periodontics, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

2Graduate Student, Graduate Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

3Professor and Director of Graduate Periodontics, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Correspondence to: Dr Hom-Lay Wang, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078, USA. Fax: +734-936-0374. Email: [email protected]

Submitted November 25, 2018; accepted July 15, 2019.

Impact of Implant Length on Survival of Rough-Surface Implants in Nonaugmented Posterior Areas:

A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression AnalysisAndrea Ravidà, DDS, MS1/Jad Majzoub, BDS1/Madi Alassadi, BDS1/

Muhammad H. A. Saleh, BDS, MS2/Houssam Askar, BDS1/Hom-Lay Wang, DDS, MS, PhD3

Purpose: Short implants have been considered as an alternative to regular implants even where native

bone is potentially adequate. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of implant length on

its survival. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials and

prospective studies was performed using the PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Meta-

regression analysis determined the effect of the length on the implant survival rate. Results: Sixty-six studies

comprising 4,525 implants were included in the meta-regression analysis. Overall, for each additional 1 mm

of length, the survival rate was increased by 0.42 percentage points (P = .056). In the maxilla, an additional

1 mm in length implied 0.68 percentage points more in the rate (P < .001), while in the mandible, statistical

significance was not reached. Eventually, the implant survival rate in the 3- to 5-year period was strongly

affected by the length of the implants in the maxilla, since it increased by 2% for each additional 1 mm of

length. Conclusion: In the presence of adequate native bone, placement of longer/regular-sized implants

should be chosen over placement of short implants in the maxilla. However, in a posterior mandible, short

implants offer a judicious alternative. Int J Oral MaxIllOfac IMplants 2019;34:1359–1369. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7509

Keywords: dental implants, implant survival, review, short implants, systematic

© 2019 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY. NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.

1360 Volume 34, Number 6, 2019

Ravidà et al

placed after bone augmentation with bovine bone, reporting comparable survival rates between test and control groups after 3 years.9 These promising results are currently leading clinicians toward placing shorter implants, even where native bone is a potentially ad-equate recipient of longer counterparts.10,11 The ra-tionale behind this is supported by two fundamental pillars. First, resorting to shorter implants is typically the more conservative and, in turn, safer option. Sec-ondly, in case peri-implant bone loss ensues beyond corrective treatment, a less complicated implant re-moval procedure is confronted when short implants are used.12 In such a manner, complexities of augmen-tation procedures will be avoided once again. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of implant length on the survival rate of rough-surface implants placed in nonaugmented posterior areas of partially edentulous patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study RegistrationThe protocol of the present study was registered in PROSPERO under the identification number CRD42018104130.

Reporting FormatThe 27-item Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement13 was employed in explanation of the search process results. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews guidelines (AMSTAR)14 was utilized to reach the predetermined standards of systematic reviews.

Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) QuestionThe PICO format introduced by Stone in 200215 was used to elaborate the focused research question as follows:

• Patients (P): Patients receiving one or more implants in the posterior area without a bone augmentation procedure

• Intervention (I): Placement of short dental implants in the posterior mandible and/or maxilla

• Comparison (C): Placement of long dental implants in the posterior mandible and/or maxilla

• Outcome (O): Relationship between implant length and survival rate

Focused QuestionDoes implant length, in systemically healthy, partially edentulous patients with a dental implant placed in

the posterior area without a bone augmentation pro-cedure impact short- and long-term survival rates?

Eligibility CriteriaArticles were included in the analysis if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) controlled prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥ 10 human subjects receiving one or more im-plants; (2) studies specifying implant length; (3) studies that report failed implant information; (4) studies with implants placed in the posterior maxilla/mandible of partially edentulous patients; and (5) studies with im-plants placed in native bone (no bone augmentation prior to implant placement).

The exclusion criteria were: (1) preclinical animal studies, case series, case reports, retrospective cohort studies, systematic reviews; (2) articles not report-ing implant length and/or survival rate; (3) studies with implants placed in augmented bone; (4) studies with edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported full-arch prostheses; (5) studies with ma-chined implants; and (6) studies with implants placed in the anterior maxilla/mandible.

Information Sources and Search StrategyTwo reviewers (H.A., A.R.) conducted electronic litera-ture searches using three databases: (1) MEDLINE (until September 2018), (2) EMBASE (until September 2018), and (3) Cochrane with the following search terms:

• MEDLINE: (((“dental implants”[MeSH Terms] OR (“dental”[All Fields] AND “implants”[All Fields]) OR “dental implants”[All Fields] OR (“dental”[All Fields] AND “implant”[All Fields]) OR “dental implant”[All Fields]) AND (“clinical trial”[Publication Type] OR “clinical trials as topic”[MeSH Terms] OR “clinical trial”[All Fields])) NOT Overdenture[Title/Abstract]) NOT (Full[All Fields] AND (“Arch Otolaryngol”[Journal] OR “arch”[All Fields]))

• EMBASE: (‘dental implants’/exp OR ‘dental implants’ OR ((‘dental’/exp OR dental) AND (‘implants’/exp OR implants))) AND survival

• COCHRANE: “dental implant” in Trials

In addition, a manual search in dental implant–related journals was conducted to ensure a compre-hensive screening process. The article bibliographies of all full-text reviewed papers were also screened to check for further studies. All disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (H.L.W.). Kappa value was used to calculate the agree-ment level between reviewers. Furthermore, previous systematic reviews evaluating short implants were also scanned for article identification.16–32



Ravidà et al

Data Extraction and AnalysesDuring the first step, articles were excluded when their titles and abstracts failed to meet the eligibility criteria elaborated above. During the second step, two cali-brated reviewers (H.A., J.M.) screened the remaining articles by reading the full text using a predetermined data extraction form to evaluate the eligibility of the se-lected studies based on the aforementioned inclusion and exclusion criteria. During the process, all disagree-ments were discussed with a third reviewer (H.L.W.). Thereafter, patient characteristics and clinical out-comes were independently extracted by three review-ers and systematically recorded. When a study article presented a lack of necessary clinical data, the respec-tive authors were electronically contacted. All statisti-cal analyses were performed using the software R 3.0.2 (R Core Team [2018]. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.). To assess the influence of implant length on survival, a meta-regression with the length as the moderating variable was estimated under the random-effects approach (mixed effects). A series of meta-regressions were performed to evaluate the effects of other variables, including level of implant placement relative to peri-implant bone and time of loading, on the survival rate. The same type of analysis was replicated for the survival rate up to more defined time points (for example, a subanalysis for early fail-ures before loading). The level of significance used in the analyses was set up as 5% (α = .05).

Outcomes and VariablesIn each included study, clinical parameters such as (1) implant characteristics (length, diameter, internal/external connection, bone/soft tissue–level implants), (2) prosthetic parameters (immediate/early/delayed loading, cement/screw-retained prosthesis, splinted/nonsplinted restoration), and (3) surgical parameters (one- or two-stage implant placement) were obtained from the selected articles and analyzed. Survival rate was recorded during each follow-up interval (annual) and defined as the presence of the implant in the mouth with or without complications within the ob-servational period. On the other hand, failure was con-sidered as implant removal independent of the cause. Finally, early failure was defined as implant removal prior to loading.

Risk of Bias and Qualitative AssessmentThe quality assessment of the included articles was performed by two independent reviewers (A.R. and H.A.). To record the bias of all the nonrandomized clinical trials, the indications of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were followed.33 Furthermore, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs was used to assess the bias of all

RCTs, categorizing them as low, moderate, or high risk of bias.34

RESULTS

Study SelectionAfter the initial selection, a total of 8,591 articles (2,795 PubMed [Medline]; 3,529 EMBASE; 1,927 Cochrane) were included in the search. Additionally, 340 addition-al articles were selected through other sources. Overall, 375 were included after title and abstract assessment. A total of 309 articles were excluded after full-text read-ing (Appendix Table 1; see online version of this article at quintpub.com), leaving 66 studies6,8,9,11,35–97 includ-ed in the analysis (Fig 1). The k value for interreviewer agreement for potentially relevant articles was 0.87 (titles and abstracts) and 0.95 (full-text articles).

Risk of BiasFor the 39 included RCTs, the results of the risk of bias assessment according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions98 are showed in Appendix Table 2. Overall, 7 studies displayed low risk of bias,52,53,62,70,

71,74,78 17 studies6,9,11,25,35,40–43,48,51,58,68,77,79,82,84 showed mo derate risk of bias, and 15 studies8,36,39,44,46,54,65,72,87,

88,90–92,95,97 were considered to have a high risk of bias. Furthermore, 2737,38,45,47,49,50,55–57,59,61,63,64,66,67,69,

73,75,76,80,81,85,86,89,93,94,96 non-RCTs were assessed ac-cording to the parameter described in the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.33 The results of the assessments are illustrated in Appendix Table 3. The score obtained was 6.39 (SD: 1.7) showing a satisfactory (low-medium risk of bias) methodologic level of evidence.

Implant Location and CharacteristicsIn all the included articles, implants were placed in the posterior region, and in all of them, the presence of opposing functional dentition was required. In articles where some of the implants met the inclusion criteria and others did not, only that part of the implants was included in the analysis. All the included articles and implants are listed in Appendix Table 4. Furthermore, the numbers of included implants according to their length are shown in Table 1.

Overall, a total of 4,525 implants were placed; 1,006 were inserted in the maxilla, 2,048 in the man-dible, and in 1,471, the arch was not specified. Screw-retained implant restorations were used 839 times, cement-retained 2,450 times, and in 1,236 implants, the type of retention was not specified. In terms of implant-abutment connection, 718 implants had an external connection, 3,012 presented with an internal connection, and in 795, the type of connection was



Ravidà et al

Records after duplicates removed (n = 3,313)

Studies included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis

(n = 66)

Records excluded (n = 2,938)

Full-text articles excluded for not fulfilling exclusion/inclusion criteria

(n = 309)

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility

(n = 375); kappa = 0.95

Titles and abstracts screened (n = 3,313); kappa = 0.87

Incl

uded

Elig

ibili

tyId

entifi

catio

nScr

eeni

ngAdditional records identified through

other sources (n = 340)

PubMed database(n = 2,795)

Cochrane database(n = 1,927)

EMBASE database(n = 3,529)

Records before duplicates removed (n = 8,591)

Reasons for exclusionInvolved anterior implants (n = 38)More recent publication (n = 7)Implant splinted with teeth (n = 1)Specific length was not reported (n = 174)Retrospective studies (n = 8)Complete edentulism cases (n = 37)Immediate implant placement (n = 20)Bone augmentation (n = 20)Machined implants (n = 4)

Fig 1 PRISMA flowchart of the screening process.

Table 1 Number of Included Implants According to Their Length

Length (mm)Total no. of implants

No. of implants: maxilla

No. of implants: mandible

No. of implants in which max/mand location is N/A % over the total

4 267 37 120 110 2.155 155 80 59 16 3.766 1,079 324 321 434 20.436.5 82 38 44 0 1.617 100 0 58 42 2.157.5 30 16 0 14 1.088 390 173 171 46 11.298.5 294 12 19 263 4.309 67 8 0 59 3.239.5 50 0 50 0 0.5410 839 171 520 148 17.7410.5 10 0 0 10 0.5411 139 20 73 46 5.9111.5 106 0 43 63 2.6912 188 75 69 44 8.0613 344 30 207 107 7.5314 10 10 0 0 1.6115 274 11 194 69 3.2316 2 1 1 0 1.0818 99 0 99 0 1.08Total 4,525 1,006 2,048 1,471 100.00

Some authors worked in both arches and did not specify how many implants were located in each one. Max = maxilla; mand = mandible; N/A = not available.



Ravidà et al

impossible to assess. Furthermore, in 1,722 implants, the abutment was placed in concomitance with their placement, while in 1,888, the two-stage approach was used, and in 915, the type of approach was not clarified. Finally, 1,337 implants were splinted, 1,399 were nonsplinted, and in 1,789, the type of restoration was impossible to evaluate.

Effect of the Length on Overall SurvivalA bias that needed to be ruled out since it could poten-tially condition the survival was the possible associa-tion in terms of time between longer implants (more or less follow-up) compared with the shorter implants. The results of the meta-regression failed to find a sig-nificant effect of the follow-up time (P = .619).

The length of the implant suggested a certain in-fluence on the survival rate (P = .056) since for each additional 1 mm of length, the rate raised by 0.42 percentage points. Hence, placing an implant with a length of 2.5 mm higher than another will increase sur-vival by 1.05 percentage points (Figs 2a and 2b).

Furthermore, for the same length of implant, the level (STL vs BL) (P = .973), the arch (maxilla or man-dible) (P = .667), early or delayed loading (P = .702), the diameter (P = .789), the type of connection (internal or external) (P = .574), the type of retention (screwed or cemented) (P = .241), the splinting (P = .090), and the stage (I or II) (P = .875) did not significantly influence the survival rate.

Effect of Length on the Survival Rate in the MandibleThe survival rates of 2,048 implants were studied in the mandible. The measure of the overall effect of the survival rate was 96.5% with 95% CI (93.9% to 99.1%). Figure 2c shows the influence of the length on the sur-vival. Although the value of the coefficient suggested a small increase in survival as the length of the implant

increases, statistical significance was not reached (P = .389).

None of the studied variables reached statistical sig-nificance, with only the splinting being almost signifi-cant (P = .082). For splinted implants, the survival rate was lower compared with nonsplinted implants.

Effect of Length on the Survival Rate in the MaxillaThe sample comprised 1,006 implants. The measure of the overall survival rate was 97.9% with 95% CI (96.6% to 99.2%). Therefore, the length of the im-plant itself was determining the overall survival rate (P < .001). It has been estimated that an additional 1 mm in length implied 0.68 percentage points more in the rate (Figs 3a and 3b).

Furthermore, some of these variables (retention, stage) have a significant influence on the survival. For the same length of implant, a screw-type retention reduces the survival compared with a cemented one (P = .019), with an impact on it of –2.64%. For the same length of implant, a two-stage approach increases the survival (P = .002) with respect to a one-stage surgical approach by 4.99 percentage points.

Effect of Length on the Overall Early FailureThe early survival rate was 98.7% with 95% CI (97.5% to 99.8%). Implant length was associated with early im-plant survival rate (P = .057). It has been estimated that an additional 1 mm in length implied 0.36 percentage points more in the survival rate (Fig 4). In addition, none of the studied variables were detected to affect the early survival rate.

In the mandible, the early survival rate was 98.1% with 95% CI (95.7% to 100%). The length did not affect short-term survival (P = .261), and none of the studied factors were shown to be statistically significant. In the maxilla, the early survival rate was 99.7% with 95% CI

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

Sur

viva

l rat

e

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Length (mm)a

1.0

0.98

0.96

0.94

0.92

0.90

Sur

viva

l rat

e

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Length (mm)b

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

Sur

viva

l rat

e

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Length (mm)c

Fig 2 (a) Survival rate (in proportion) as a function of implant length in both arches. Regression line for predicted effects and 95% confidence intervals. (b) Survival rate (in proportion) as a function of implant length in both arches including studies with rate > 0.90 (zoom of Fig 2a). Regression line for predicted effects and 95% confidence intervals. (c) Survival rate (in proportion) as a function of implant length in the mandible. Regression line for predicted effects and 95% confidence intervals.



Ravidà et al

(99.4% to 99.9%). In this case, the length of the implant was important to explain the early implant survival rate (P = .014) since it increased by 0.12% for each ad-ditional 1 mm of length.

Effect of Length on the Survival in the Period Between 3 and 5 YearsA total of 1,306 implants presented a follow-up and information of the failure rate beyond 3 years. The sur-vival rate in the 3- to 5-year period was 96.6% with 95% CI (94.7% to 98.5%). The length showed a statistically significant influence on the survival rate (P = .009). In fact, for every 1 mm more in length, the average sur-vival rate rose by 0.79 percentage points (Fig 5).

In the mandible, 463 implants were entered in the analyses. The survival rate in the 3- to 5-year pe-riod was 97.3% with 95% CI (95.0% to 99.6%). In this case, the length had no special influence on the im-plant survival rate. In the maxilla, 363 implants were entered in the analyses. The survival rate in the 3- to 5-year period was 93.7% with 95% CI (88.5% to 99.0%). The implant length did significantly impact (P = .018) the implant survival rate with 1 additional mm being equivalent to 2 percentage points of increase in the survival rate.

DISCUSSION

Successful rehabilitation of an atrophied maxilla and/or mandible via surgical/prosthetic approaches is a de-manding experience not only for patients but also for clinicians.99,100 Seeking a minimally invasive approach without involving major surgical procedures has been the preferred choice for both parties.7,101

Based on the 66 clinical trials with a sample of 4,525 implants included in this review, the present results demonstrate that longer implants present a signifi-cantly greater overall survival rate than shorter im-plants. This effect is more obvious for implants placed in the maxilla, where each additional millimeter in im-plant length increased the survival rate by 0.68% dur-ing a 5-year follow-up period. Another notable effect was observed when analyzing the effect of implant length on the early (3 to 5 years) survival of implants placed in the maxilla. In this case, each additional mil-limeter in implant length increased implant survival by 2%. Another associated variable of statistical and clini-cal significance was the time of implant loading, where longer implants had better survival rates with late compared to early loading (P < .02). Other than that, for implants with similar lengths, the implant diameter,

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

Sur

viva

l rat

e

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Length (mm)a

1.0

0.98

0.96

0.94

0.92

0.90

Sur

viva

l rat

e

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Length (mm)b

Fig 3 (a) Survival rate (in proportion) as a function of implant length in the maxilla. Regression line for predicted effects and 95% confidence intervals. (b) Survival rate (in proportion) as a function of implant length in the maxilla including studies with rate > 0.90 (zoom of Fig 3a). Regression line for predicted effects and 95% confi-dence intervals.

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

Sur

viva

l rat

e

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Length (mm)a

1.0

0.98

0.96

0.94

0.92

0.90

Sur

viva

l rat

e

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Length (mm)b

Fig 4 (a) Survival rate (in proportion) for early failures as a function of implant length in both arches. Regression line for predicted effects and 95% confidence intervals. (b) Survival rate (in proportion) for early failures as a function of implant length in both arches including studies with rate > 0.90 (zoom of Fig 4a). Regression line for predicted effects and 95% confidence intervals.

Sur

viva

l rat

e

4 6 8 10 12 14Length (mm)

Fig 5 Survival rate (in proportion) for fail-ures between 3 and 5 years as a function of implant length in both arches including studies with rate > 0.90. Regression line for predicted effects and 95% confidence intervals.

1.0

0.98

0.96

0.94

0.92

0.90



Ravidà et al

implant location (maxilla vs mandible), splinting adja-cent implants, or type of implant-abutment connection had no influence on implant survival. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to perform an analysis including implants with 5 years minimum of baseline due to the limited sample size.

The present study aimed to provide a true repre-sentation of the clinical performance of short implants. To limit bias against short implants, the present study excluded studies using machined surfaces, or implants placed in the anterior region, which have both proved to induce lower success rates for short implants.16,102 To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous system-atic review has attempted to investigate the effect of length on implant survival in nonaugmented sites only, which several clinical studies have explored.42,47,48,70 Though, there are a few systematic reviews that can be compared to the present study, all complementing the results of the present study in one way or another.

In a systematic review, Nisand and Renouard (2014) investigated the impact of implant length and diam-eter on implant survival,12 though they had compared rough- to machined-surface implants, and included both augmented and nonaugmented sites. The authors of that study concluded that survival of short implants might be as good as longer ones. While some of their included studies reported comparable results, many others concluded that longer implants had better sur-vival rates. The authors justified this by pointing to some studies having used short implants with a machined surface. Rough-surface implants have long been dem-onstrated to have superior bone-to-implant contact compared with their smooth-surface counterparts. This was proven in both animal103 and human studies.104 In turn, such histologic findings were portrayed clini-cally as significantly higher survival and success rates of rough- vs machined-surface short implants.16,102 Hence, the present study resorted to exclusion criteria that eliminated any study utilizing machined-surface implants. Generally, higher failure rates in low-density bone have been reported repeatedly in the literature. A recent systematic review found that the cumulative sur-vival rate of implants placed in type I bone was 97.6%, compared with 88.8% for type IV bone.105 When com-paring short to long implants, though, the odds of fail-ure for short implants were nearly twice those of long implants.102

What all the aforementioned studies illuminated is the mere impact of poor bone density as well as aug-mented sites on implant survival. Generally, implant length and surface structure seem to play a great role in increasing implant survival. The perception that there is no difference in survival rates has been mainly based on studies comparing short to long implants, where the latter are placed in augmented bone.3 In

the conclusion of a recent meta-analysis published by the present group of authors, it has been stated that extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) presented as an equivalent option in the treatment of patients with an atrophic posterior arch up to 3 years follow-up. The word atrophic is important because in most of the in-cluded articles, the longer implants were placed after bone augmentation (sinus elevation or vertical guided bone regeneration). A careful reading shows that at 5 years follow-up, it was possible to include only two articles that placed long implants in native bone11,68 and a third article43 in which bone augmentation (si-nus elevation) was performed only when indicated. Although there was a small sample size, the results of the meta-analysis showed that short implants had a lower survival rate than the longer implants placed in native bone.

A reciprocal bias is noticed when implants placed in augmented sites also have a machined surface. In aug-mented sites, machined-surface implants have proven to have a significantly lower survival rate (86.3%) com-pared with rough surface (96.7%).106 In essence, these studies might have been comparing implant surface as well as implant length.

The present study does not generate unexpected perspectives on this topic. Although longer implants have been previously reported to generally have high-er survival rates,107,108 the present verdict is clearly not to place them unquestionably in any situation. The present authors are being inquisitive about the ben-efit of placing shorter implants when sufficient pris-tine bone is available for regular implants, especially after concluding the results of the present study. Based on the results of the present study, placing a 10-mm implant in the maxilla will immensely increase its 3- to 5-year survival rate by 8% compared with a 6-mm implant. Although higher failure rates should be ex-pected from short implants in low bone density condi-tions, failure of short implants should be compared to the morbidity and failure rates associated with com-plex augmentation procedures to be done in order to place a longer one. Both risks must be gauged before performing either procedure, with the patient actively involved in that decision.109

Another premise that should be evoked is the fate of shorter vs longer implants in the case of advanced peri-implant disease. A cross-sectional study by Derks and coworkers (2016) examined 427 implant patients to find a 45% prevalence of peri-implantitis, with 10% having > 3 mm bone loss.110 Consequently, it would be expected for 10% of patients with 6-mm implants to exhibit bone loss up to the equivalent of 50% of their implant length when peri-implantitis ensues, which puts these implants at a significantly higher risk of failure. On the other hand, if a short implant demands



Ravidà et al

removal following disease beyond correction, it can be removed fairly easily compared with a longer implant (where the removal may jeopardize adjacent teeth). This generally deems shorter implants as an appeal-ing alternative, irrespective of the risk of failure if ad-vanced peri-implantitis emerges.12

Data from the present study seem remarkable at first glance; however, it must be interpreted with cau-tion without generalizing to every clinical scenario. Therefore, the limitations of the present study need to be characterized and taken into consideration, in addition to the inherent biases of the included stud-ies (Appendix Tables 2 and 3). The present review only investigated what is currently found in the literature; thus, even prior to initiating the literature search, an el-ement of publication bias was present. This might have been inconveniently reflected in the present results and may account for an overestimation of the survival rates pertaining to the longer implants. More particu-lar to the present study is that one of the exclusion cri-teria was implants placed in augmented sites. Such an exclusion was explicitly essential from study inception. The main objective of the present study was to investi-gate the impact of length (as a continuous variable) on implant survival rate, and not a binary comparison of short vs long implants. After the present results were demonstrated, it would be sensible to investigate the impact of different implant lengths placed explicitly in augmented sites (eg, following sinus floor elevation).

CONCLUSIONS

Since choosing the ideal implant length is a daily deci-sion a clinician needs to make, a clear understanding of indications per each situation is fundamental. When abundant native bone exists, placement of longer/reg-ular-sized implants should be chosen over placement of short implants in the maxilla. However, in a posterior mandible, short implants offer a judicious alternative.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors reported no conflicts of interest related to this study.

REFERENCES

1. Monje A, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, García-Nogales A, Fu JH, Wang HL. A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1119–1124.

2. Papaspyridakos P, De Souza A, Vazouras K, Gholami H, Pagni S, We-ber HP. Survival rates of short dental implants (≤6 mm) compared with implants longer than 6 mm in posterior jaw areas: A meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(suppl 16):8–20.

3. Ravida A, Wang IC, Barootchi S, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing clinical and patient-reported outcomes between extra-short (≤6 mm) and longer (≥10 mm) implants. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46:118–142.

4. Ravidà A, Barootchi S, Askar H, Suárez-López Del Amo F, Tavelli L, Wang HL. Long-term effectiveness of extra-short (≤ 6 mm) dental implants: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:68–84.

5. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(suppl):237–259.

6. Bechara S, Kubilius R, Veronesi G, Pires JT, Shibli JA, Mangano FG. Short (6-mm) dental implants versus sinus floor elevation and placement of longer (≥10-mm) dental implants: A randomized controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1097–1107.

7. Thoma DS, Haas R, Tutak M, Garcia A, Schincaglia GP, Hämmerle CH. Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: De-mographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42:72–80.

8. Pohl V, Thoma DS, Sporniak-Tutak K, et al. Short dental implants (6 mm) versus long dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 3-year results from a mul-ticentre, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2017;44:438–445.

9. Esposito M, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Felice P. Three-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7:383–395.

10. Guljé F, Abrahamsson I, Chen S, Stanford C, Zadeh H, Palmer R. Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: A 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1325–1331.

11. Rossi F, Botticelli D, Cesaretti G, De Santis E, Storelli S, Lang NP. Use of short implants (6 mm) in a single-tooth replacement: A 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:458–464.

12. Nisand D, Renouard F. Short implant in limited bone volume. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:72–96.

13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Pre-ferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006–1012.

14. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of system-atic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1013–1020.

15. Stone PW. Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl Nurs Res 2002;15:197–198.

16. Annibali S, Cristalli MP, Dell’Aquila D, Bignozzi I, La Monaca G, Pilloni A. Short dental implants: A systematic review. J Dent Res 2012;91:25–32.

17. Sun HL, Huang C, Wu YR, Shi B. Failure rates of short (≤ 10 mm) dental implants and factors influencing their failure: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:816–825.

18. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:667–676.

19. Neldam CA, Pinholt EM. State of the art of short dental implants: A systematic review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:622–632.

20. Srinivasan M, Vazquez L, Rieder P, Moraguez O, Bernard JP, Belser UC. Efficacy and predictability of short dental implants (<8 mm): A critical appraisal of the recent literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1429–1437.



Ravidà et al

21. Atieh MA, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, Cooper LF. Survival of short den-tal implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: A sys-tematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1323–1331.

22. Monje A, Fu JH, Chan HL, et al. Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospec-tive studies. J Periodontol 2013;84:1783–1791.

23. Lee SA, Lee CT, Fu MM, Elmisalati W, Chuang SK. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the man-agement of limited vertical height in the posterior region: Short implants (5 to 8 mm) vs longer implants (> 8 mm) in vertically augmented sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1085–1097.

24. Kwon T, Bain PA, Levin L. Systematic review of short- (5-10 years) and long-term (10 years or more) survival and success of full-arch fixed dental hybrid prostheses and supporting implants. J Dent 2014;42:1228–1241.

25. Al-Hashedi AA, Taiyeb Ali TB, Yunus N. Short dental implants: An emerging concept in implant treatment. Quintessence Int 2014;45:499–514.

26. Mezzomo LA, Miller R, Triches D, Alonso F, Shinkai RS. Meta-analy-sis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:191–213.

27. Lemos CA, Ferro-Alves ML, Okamoto R, Mendonça MR, Pellizzer EP. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;47:8–17.

28. Nisand D, Picard N, Rocchietta I. Short implants compared to implants in vertically augmented bone: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(suppl 11):170–179.

29. Khouly I, Veitz-Keenan A. Insufficient evidence for sinus lifts over short implants for dental implant rehabilitation. Evid Based Dent 2015;16:21–22.

30. Alqutaibi AY, Altaib F. Short dental implant is considered as a reli-able treatment option for patients with atrophic posterior maxilla. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2016;16:173–175.

31. Tong Q, Zhang X, Yu L. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled tri-als comparing clinical outcomes between short implants and long implants with bone augmentation procedure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:e25–e34.

32. Fan T, Li Y, Deng WW, Wu T, Zhang W. Short implants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (>8 mm) with sinus lifting in atrophic pos-terior maxilla: A meta-analysis of RCTs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:207–215.

33. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tug-well P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis. Appl Eng Agric 2014;18:727–734.

34. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Col-laboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.

35. Bolle C, Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli V, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Esposi-to M. 4 mm long vs longer implants in augmented bone in poste-rior atrophic jaws: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2018;11:31–47.

36. Hadzik J, Krawiec M, Kubasiewicz-Ross P, Prylińska-Czyżewska A, Gedrange T, Dominiak M. Short implants and conventional implants in the residual maxillary alveolar ridge: A 36-month follow-up observation. Med Sci Monit 2018;24:5645–5652.

37. Shilpa BS, Vasudevan SD, Bhongade ML, Baliga V, Pakhare VV, Dhadse PV. Evaluation of survival of 8 mm-length implants in posterior resorbed ridges: A pilot study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2018;22:334–339.

38. Malchiodi L, Cucchi A, Ghensi P, Consonni D, Nocini PF. Influence of crown-implant ratio on implant success rates and crestal bone levels: A 36-month follow-up prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:240–251.

39. Ayna M, Wessing B, Gutwald R, et al. A 5-year prospective clinical trial on short implants (6 mm) for single tooth replacement in the posterior maxilla: Immediate versus delayed loading. Odontology 2019;107:244–253.

40. Guarnieri R, Di Nardo D, Gaimari G, Miccoli G, Testarelli L. Short vs. standard laser-microgrooved implants supporting single and splinted crowns: A prospective study with 3 years follow-up. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e771–e779.

41. Gastaldi G, Felice P, Pistilli V, Barausse C, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. 3-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2018;11:49–61.

42. Zadeh HH, Guljé F, Palmer PJ, et al. Marginal bone level and sur-vival of short and standard-length implants after 3 years: An open multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:894–906.

43. Naenni N, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, et al. Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): A randomized controlled clini-cal trial. J Dent Res 2018;97:887–892.

44. Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli V, Piattelli M, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long × 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. 3-year post-loading results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2018;11:175–187.

45. Han J, Tang Z, Zhang X, Meng H. A prospective, multi-center study assessing early loading with short implants in posterior regions. A 3-year post-loading follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:34–42.

46. Taschieri S, Lolato A, Testori T, Francetti L, Del Fabbro M. Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: Three-year results of a randomized clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:9–20.

47. Benlidayi ME, Ucar Y, Tatli U, et al. Short implants versus standard implants: Midterm outcomes of a clinical study. Implant Dent 2018;27:95–100.

48. Waechter J, Madruga MM, Carmo Filho LCD, Leite FRM, Schin-estsck AR, Faot F. Comparison between tapered and cylindrical implants in the posterior regions of the mandible: A prospec-tive, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial focusing on implant stability changes during early healing. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:733–741.

49. Rossi F, Lang NP, Ricci E, Ferraioli L, Marchetti C, Botticelli D. 6-mm-long implants loaded with fiber-reinforced composite resin-bond-ed fixed prostheses (FRCRBFDPs). A 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1478–1483.

50. Villarinho EA, Triches DF, Alonso FR, Mezzomo LAM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RSA. Risk factors for single crowns supported by short (6-mm) implants in the posterior region: A prospective clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:671–680.

51. Gastaldi G, Felice P, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Esposito M. Short implants as an alternative to crestal sinus lift: A 3-year multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implan-tol 2017;10:391–400.

52. Tallarico M, Xhanari E, Pisano M, Gatti F, Meloni SM. Molar replace-ment with 7 mm-wide diameter implants: To place the implant immediately or to wait 4 months after socket preservation? 1 year after loading results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10:169–178.

53. Bömicke W, Gabbert O, Koob A, Krisam J, Rammelsberg P. Compari-son of immediately loaded flapless-placed one-piece implants and flapped-placed conventionally loaded two-piece implants, both fitted with all-ceramic single crowns, in the posterior mandible: 3-year results from a randomised controlled pilot trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10:179–195.

54. Akoğlan M, Tatli U, Kurtoğlu C, Salimov F, Kürkçü M. Effects of dif-ferent loading protocols on the secondary stability and peri-im-plant bone density of the single implants in the posterior maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:624–631.

55. Lee PK, Siu AS. A two-year evaluation of a sloped marginal contour implant system placed in healed sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Im-plants 2016;31:1423–1428.

56. Ghariani L, Segaan L, Rayyan MM, Galli S, Jimbo R, Ibrahim A. Does crown/implant ratio influence the survival and marginal bone level of short single implants in the mandibular molar? A preliminary in-vestigation consisting of 12 patients. J Oral Rehabil 2016;43:127–135.

57. Malmstrom H, Gupta B, Ghanem A, Cacciato R, Ren Y, Romanos GE. Success rate of short dental implants supporting single crowns and fixed bridges. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:1093–1098.



Ravidà et al

58. Felice P, Checchi L, Barausse C, et al. Posterior jaws rehabilitated with partial prostheses supported by 4.0 × 4.0 mm or by longer implants: One-year post-loading results from a multicenter ran-domised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2016;9:35–45.

59. Mangano F, Frezzato I, Frezzato A, Veronesi G, Mortellaro C, Mangano C. The effect of crown-to-implant ratio on the clinical performance of extra-short locking-taper implants. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27:675–681.

60. Al-Hashedi AA, Taiyeb-Ali TB, Yunus N. Outcomes of placing short implants in the posterior mandible: A preliminary randomized controlled trial. Aust Dent J 2016;61:208–218.

61. Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. Comparison of strains for splinted and nonsplinted screw-retained prostheses on short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1176–1182.

62. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Impact of platform switching on inter-proximal bone levels around short implants in the posterior region; 1-year results from a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39:688–697.

63. Moergel M, Rocha S, Messias A, Nicolau P, Guerra F, Wagner W. Radiographic evaluation of conical tapered platform-switched implants in the posterior mandible: 1-year results of a two-center prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:686–693.

64. Marković A, Čolić S, Šćepanović M, Mišić T, Ðinić A, Bhusal DS. A 1-year prospective clinical and radiographic study of early-loaded bone level implants in the posterior maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:1004–1013.

65. Nedir R, Nurdin N, Khoury P, Bischof M. Short implants placed with or without grafting in atrophic sinuses: The 3-year results of a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:10–18.

66. Slotte C, Grønningsaeter A, Halmøy AM, et al. Four-millimeter-long posterior-mandible implants: 5-year outcomes of a prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17(suppl 2):e385–e395.

67. Rossi F, Lang NP, Ricci E, Ferraioli L, Marchetti C, Botticelli D. Early loading of 6-mm-short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns—a prospective 5-year cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:471–477.

68. Romeo E, Storelli S, Casano G, Scanferla M, Botticelli D. Six-mm versus 10-mm long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior edentulous jaws: A 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7:371–381.

69. Bratu E, Chan HL, Mihali S, et al. Implant survival rate and marginal bone loss of 6-mm short implants: A 2-year clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1425–1428.

70. Canullo L, Peñarrocha D, Peñarrocha M, Rocio AG, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Piezoelectric vs. conventional drilling in implant site preparation: Pilot controlled randomized clinical trial with cross-over design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1336–1343.

71. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled, split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7:47–61.

72. Kim YK, Lee JH, Lee JY, Yi YJ. A randomized controlled clinical trial of two types of tapered implants on immediate loading in the posterior maxilla and mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1602–1611.

73. Mangano FG, Shibli JA, Sammons RL, Iaculli F, Piattelli A, Mangano C. Short (8-mm) locking-taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: A prospective clinical study with 1-to 10-years of follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:933–940.

74. Telleman G, Meijer HJ, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM. Short implants with a nanometer-sized CaP surface provided with either a platform-switched or platform-matched abutment connection in the posterior region: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1316–1324.

75. Kennedy KS, Jones EM, Kim DG, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. A prospective clinical study to evaluate early success of short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:170–177.

76. Pieri F, Aldini NN, Fini M, Marchetti C, Corinaldesi G. Preliminary 2-year report on treatment outcomes for 6-mm-long implants in posterior atrophic mandibles. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:279–289.

77. Canullo L, Iannello G, Peñarrocha M, Garcia B. Impact of implant diameter on bone level changes around platform switched implants: Preliminary results of 18 months follow-up a prospective randomized match-paired controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:1142–1146.

78. Meloni SM, De Riu G, Pisano M, De Riu N, Tullio A. Immediate versus delayed loading of single mandibular molars. One-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012;5:345–353.

79. Barewal RM, Stanford C, Weesner TC. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the effects of three loading proto-cols on dental implant stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:945–956.

80. Enkling N, Jöhren P, Klimberg V, Bayer S, Mericske-Stern R, Jepsen S. Effect of platform switching on peri-implant bone levels: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:1185–1192.

81. Alghamdi H, Anand PS, Anil S. Undersized implant site preparation to enhance primary implant stability in poor bone density: A pro-spective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69:e506–e512.

82. Felice P, Pellegrino G, Checchi L, Pistilli R, Esposito M. Vertical augmentation with interpositional blocks of anorganic bovine bone vs. 7-mm-long implants in posterior mandibles: 1-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:1394–1403.

83. Payer M, Heschl A, Wimmer G, Wegscheider W, Kirmeier R, Loren-zoni M. Immediate provisional restoration of screw-type implants in the posterior mandible: Results after 5 years of clinical function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:815–821.

84. Park JC, Ha SR, Kim SM, Kim MJ, Lee JB, Lee JH. A randomized clinical 1-year trial comparing two types of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:228–236.

85. MacDonald K, Pharoah M, Todescan R, Deporter D. Use of sintered porous-surfaced dental implants to restore single teeth in the maxilla: A 7- to 9-year follow-up. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009;29:191–199.

86. Vigolo P, Givani A. Platform-switched restorations on wide-diam-eter implants: A 5-year clinical prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillo-fac Implants 2009;24:103–109.

87. Roccuzzo M, Aglietta M, Bunino M, Bonino L. Early loading of sandblasted and acid-etched implants: A randomized-controlled double-blind split-mouth study. Five-year results. Clin Oral Im-plants Res 2008;19:148–152.

88. Schincaglia GP, Marzola R, Giovanni GF, Chiara CS, Scotti R. Re-placement of mandibular molars with single-unit restorations sup-ported by wide-body implants: Immediate versus delayed loading. A randomized controlled study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:474–480.

89. Achilli A, Tura F, Euwe E. Immediate/early function with tapered implants supporting maxillary and mandibular posterior fixed partial dentures: Preliminary results of a prospective multicenter study. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97(suppl 6):s52–s58.

90. Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. A 4-year prospective study to assess peri-implant hard and soft tissues adjacent to titanium versus gold-alloy abutments in cemented single implant crowns. J Prosthodont 2006;15:250–256.

91. Salvi GE, Gallini G, Lang NP. Early loading (2 or 6 weeks) of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) ITI implants in the posterior mandible. A 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:142–149.

92. Rocci A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J. Immediate loading of Brånemark System TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible: A randomized open-ended clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(suppl 1):57–63.

93. Roccuzzo M, Wilson T. A prospective study evaluating a protocol for 6 weeks’ loading of SLA implants in the posterior maxilla: One year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:502–507.

94. Palmer RM, Palmer PJ, Smith BJ. A 5-year prospective study of As-tra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:179–182.

95. Bernardi S, Gatto R, Severino M, et al. Short versus longer implants in mandibular alveolar ridge augmented using osteogenic distrac-tion: One-year follow-up of a randomized split-mouth trial. J Oral Implantol 2018;44:184–191.



Ravidà et al

96. Adánez MH, Brezavšček M, Vach K, Fonseca M, Att W. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of short implants placed in the poste-rior mandible: A 1-year pilot split-mouth study. J Oral Implantol 2018;44:250–259.

97. Clelland N, Chaudhry J, Rashid RG, McGlumphy E. Split-mouth com-parison of splinted and nonsplinted prostheses on short implants: 3-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:1135–1141.

98. Higgins JPT GS. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.

99. Enislidis G, Fock N, Millesi-Schobel G, et al. Analysis of complica-tions following alveolar distraction osteogenesis and implant placement in the partially edentulous mandible. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:25–30.

100. Friberg B. The posterior maxilla: Clinical considerations and cur-rent concepts using Brånemark System implants. Periodontol 2000 2008;47:67–78.

101. Uehara PN, Matsubara VH, Igai F, Sesma N, Mukai MK, Araujo MG. Short dental implants (≤7mm) versus longer implants in augmented bone area: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Open Dent J 2018;12:354–365.

102. Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: A meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:856–863.

103. Cooper LF. A role for surface topography in creating and main-taining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:522–534.

104. Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Van’t Hof MA, Jansen JA, Creugers NH. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: A systematic review. J Dent Res 2006;85:496–500.

105. Goiato MC, dos Santos DM, Santiago JF Jr, Moreno A, Pellizzer EP. Longevity of dental implants in type IV bone: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43:1108–1116.

106. Del Fabbro M, Rosano G, Taschieri S. Implant survival rates after maxillary sinus augmentation. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:497–506.

107. Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Quirynen M, Duyck J, van Steenberghe D, Jacobs R. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part 2: A longitudinal radio-graphic study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:390–395.

108. Bahat O. Brånemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: Clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:646–653.

109. Renouard F, Nisand D. Short implants in the severely resorbed maxilla: A 2-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7(suppl 1):s104–s110.

110. Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish popula-tion: Prevalence of peri-implantitis. J Dent Res 2016;95:43–49.


Ravidà et al

1369a Volume 34, Number 6, 2019

Appendix Table 1 List of Excluded Articles

Author TitleReason for exclusion

Cannizzaro et al (2013)

Early loading of implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla: lateral sinus lift with autogenous bone and Bio-Ossversus crestal mini sinus lift and 8-mm hydroxyapatite-coated implants. A randomised controlled clinical trial

More recent publication (Cannizzaro et al 2015)

Sahrmann et al (2016)

Success of 6-mm Implants with Single-Tooth Restorations: A 3-year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

More recent publication (Naenni et al2018)

Pistilli et al (2013)

Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year post-loading results from a pilot randomised controlled trial

More recent publication (Felice 2018)

Gulje et al (2013) Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial

More recent publication (Zadeh 2018)

Felice et al (2015)

Short implants as an alternative to crestal sinus lift: A 1-year multicentre randomised controlled trial More recent publication (Gastaldi 2017)

Pistilli et al (2013)

Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 x 5 mm implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year results from a randomised controlled trial

More recent publication (Gastaldi 2018)

Han et al (2016) A prospective, multicenter study assessing the DENTSPLY Implants, OsseoSpeed() TX, length 6 mm in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year follow-up study.

More recent publication (Han et al 2018)

Lindh et al (2001) Implant versus tooth-implant supported prostheses in the posterior maxilla: a 2-year report Implants splinted with teeth

Wagner et al (2018)

Fiber-Reinforced Resin Fixed Prostheses on 4 Short Implants in Severely Atrophic Maxillas: 1-Year Results of a Prospective Cohort Study.

Specific length was not reported

Willer et al (2003)

Survival rate of IMZ implants: A prospective 10-year analysis. Specific length was not reported

Deporter et al (1999)

Five- to six-year results of a prospective clinical trial using the ENDOPORE dental implant and a mandibular overdenture


Romeo et al (2002)

Long-term clinical effectiveness of oral implants in the treatment of partial edentulism Specific length was not reported

Cesaretti et al (2016)

Radiographic evaluation of immediately loaded implants supporting 2-3 units fixed bridges in the posterior maxilla: a 3-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study


Chidagam et al (2017)

Immediate versus delayed loading of implant for replacement of missing mandibular first molar: A randomized prospective six years clinical study


Moberg et al (2001)

Brånemark System and ITI Dental Implant System for treatment of mandibular edentulism. A comparative randomized study: 3-year follow-up


McGlumphy et al (2003)

Prospective study of 429 hydroxyapatite-coated cylindric omniloc implants placed in 121 patients Specific length was not reported

Lekholm et al (1999)

Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws Specific length was not reported

Cecchinato et al (2004)

Submerged or non-submerged healing of endosseous implants to be used in the rehabilitation of partially dentate patients


Jeong et al (2011)

A 1-year prospective clinical study of soft tissue conditions and marginal bone changes around dental implants after flapless implant surgery


Lang et al (2007) Immediate implant placement with transmucosal healing in areas of aesthetic priority. A multicentre randomized-controlled clinical trial I. Surgical outcomes


Larsson et al (2016)

Ten-Year Follow-Up of Implant-Supported All-Ceramic Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Randomized, Prospective Clinical Trial


Lee et al (2009) Effects of flapless implant surgery on soft tissue profiles: a prospective clinical study Specific length was not reported

Lee et al (2007) Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study Specific length was not reported

Borg et al (2014) Titanium- and zirconia-based implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. A randomized, prospective clinical pilot study


Brandenberg et al (2017)

Randomized controlled clinical pilot study of all-ceramic single-tooth implant reconstructions: clinical and microbiological outcomes at one year of loading


Karoussis et al (2004)

Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System


Kemppainen et al (1997)

A comparative prospective clinical study of two single-tooth implants: a preliminary report of 102 implants


Kim et al (2015) Prospective, 1-year observational study of double-threaded tapered body dental implants with immediate loading


Jokstad et al (2014)

Immediate function on the day of surgery compared with a delayed implant loading process in the mandible: a randomized clinical trial over 5 years



Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369b



Jones et al (1999)

A 5-year comparison of hydroxyapatite-coated titanium plasma–sprayed and titanium plasma–sprayed cylinder dental implants


Kesteren et al (2010)

A prospective randomized clinical study of changes in soft tissue position following immediate and delayed implant placement


Blanco et al (2018)

Effect of abutment height on interproximal implant bone level in the early healing: A randomized clinical trial


Kyriazis et al (2012)

Crestal bone resorption after the application of two periodontal surgical techniques: a randomized, controlled clinical trial


Karabuda et al (2011)

Stability, marginal bone loss and survival of standard and modified sand-blasted, acid-etched implants in bilateral edentulous spaces: a prospective 15-month evaluation


Khang et al (2001)

A multi-center study comparing dual acid-etched and machined-surfaced implants in various bone qualities


Ma et al (2010) Marginal bone loss with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different loading protocols and attachment systems: 10-year outcomes


MacDonald et al (2001)

Physicochemical study of plasma-sprayed hydroxypatite-coated implants in humans Specific length was not reported

Maiorana et al (2015)

A Four-Year Survival Rate Multicenter Prospective Clinical Study on 377 Implants: Correlations Between Implant Insertion Torque, Diameter, and Bone Quality


Mangano et al (2008)

Single-tooth Morse taper connection implants after 1 year of functional loading: a multicentre study on 302 patients



Full in-Office Guided Surgery with Open Selective Tooth-Supported Templates: A Prospective Clinical Study on 20 Patients


Lee et al (2016) A Long-Term Prospective Evaluation of Marginal Bone Level Change Around Different Implant Systems Specific length was not reported

Levin et al (2006) Long-term success of implants replacing a single molar Specific length was not reported

Liddelow et al (2010)

The immediately loaded single implant-retained mandibular overdenture: a 36-month prospective study Does not mention failure timing

Lindeboom et al (2010)

A comparison of two implant techniques on patient-based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement


Linkevicius et al (2015)

Crestal Bone Stability around Implants with Horizontally Matching Connection after Soft Tissue Thickening: A Prospective Clinical Trial


Nimwegen et al (2015)

Treatment Outcome of Two Adjacent Implant-Supported Restorations with Different Implant Platform Designs in the Esthetic Region: a Five-Year Randomized Clinical Trial


Nicu et al (2012) RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: a pilot study, a 3-year follow-up Specific length was not reported

Naert et al (1997)

A randomised clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in mandibular overdenture therapy. A 3-year report


Murphy et al (2002)

A prospective 5-year study of two cast framework alloys for fixed implant-supported mandibular prostheses


Moberg et al (2001)

Brånemark System and ITI Dental Implant System for treatment of mandibular edentulism. A comparative randomized study: 3-year follow-up


Francesco et al (2017)

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of single tantalum dental implants: a prospective pilot clinical study


Mitsias et al (2018)

Immediate, early (6 weeks) and delayed loading (3 months) of single, partial and full fixed implant supported prostheses: 1-year post-loading data from a multicentre randomised controlled trial


Mohanty et al (2018)

Risk Assessment in Long-term Survival Rates of Dental Implants: A Prospective Clinical Study Specific length was not reported

Moheng et al (2005)

Clinical and biologic factors related to oral implant failure: a 2-year follow-up study Specific length was not reported

Morris et al (2001)

A 48-month multicentric clinical investigation: implant design and survival Specific length was not reported

Morris et al (1997)

Success of multiple endosseous dental implant designs to second-stage surgery across study sites Specific length was not reported

Nicolau et al (2013)

Immediate and early loading of chemically modified implants in posterior jaws: 3-year results from a prospective randomized multicenter study


Nicu et al (2012) RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: a pilot study, a 3-year follow-up Specific length was not reported

Mau et al (2002) Randomized multicenter comparison of two coatings of intramobile cylinder implants in 313 partially edentulous mandibles followed up for 5 years



Ravidà et al

1369c Volume 34, Number 6, 2019



Meloni et al (2015)

Guided implant surgery after free-flap reconstruction: Four-year results from a prospective clinical trial Specific length was not reported

Merli et al (2012) Immediate versus early non-occlusal loading of dental implants placed flapless in partially edentulous patients: a 3-year randomized clinical trial


Negri et al (2014) The effect of age, gender, and insertion site on marginal bone loss around endosseous implants: results from a 3-year trial with premium implant system


Ferrigno et al (2006)

Dental implants placement in conjunction with osteotome sinus floor elevation: A 12-year life-table analysis from a prospective study on 588 ITI implants


Mumcu et al (2012)

The influence of healing type on marginal bone levels of implants supporting mandibular overdentures: a randomized clinical study


Cannata et al (2017)

A comparison of two implants with conical vs internal hex connections: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre, randomised controlled trial


Nagarajan et al (2015)

Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Implants Placed at Equicrestal and Subcrestal Levels Before Loading: A Prospective Clinical Study


Andersson et al (2003)

Ceramic implant abutments for short-span fpds: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Specific length was not reported

Andersson et al (2001)

Alumina ceramic implant abutments used for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 1- to 3-year multicenter study.


Gallucci et al (2011)

Esthetic outcomes with porcelain-fused-to-ceramic and all-ceramic single-implant crowns: a randomized clinica trial

Implant heights were not reported

Assche et al (2012)

RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 1: clinical observations Implant heights were not reported

Assche et al (2011)

Microbiological outcome of two screw-shaped titanium implant systems placed following a split-mouth randomised protocol, at the 12th year of follow-up after loading


Astrand et al (2003)

Tapered implants in jaws with soft bone quality: a clinical and radiographic 1-year study of the Brånemark System Mark IV fixture


Bornstein et al (2005)

Early loading of non-submerged titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. 5-year results of a prospective study in partially edentulous patients


Abduo et al (2017)

A comparative study of encode protocol versus conventional protocol for restoring single implants: One-year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial


Cappiello et al (2008)

Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Specific length was not reported

Hürzeler et al (2007)

Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments: Preliminary data from a prospective study.


Trammell et al (2009)

A prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of platform-switched and matched-abutment implants in short-span partial denture situations


Vigolo et al (2009)

Platform-switched restorations on wide-diameter implants: A 5-year clinical prospective study Specific length was not reported

Roccuzzo et al (2012)

Ten-year results of a three arms prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients. Part 2: clinical results.


Nikzad et al (2010)

Custom-made radiographic template, computed tomography, and computer-assisted flapless surgery for treatment planning in partial edentulous patients: a prospective 12-month study


Nimwegen et al (2015)

Treatment Outcome of Two Adjacent Implant-Supported Restorations with Different Implant Platform Designs in the Esthetic Region: a Five-Year Randomized Clinical Trial


Nkenke et al (2007)

Patient-centred outcomes comparing transmucosal implant placement with an open approach in the maxilla: a prospective, non-randomized pilot study


Prati et al (2016) A 3-Year Prospective Cohort Study on 132 Calcium Phosphate-Blasted Implants: Flap vs Flapless Technique


Thoma et al (2016)

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of All-Ceramic Single Tooth Implant Reconstructions Using Modified Zirconia Abutments: radiographic and Prosthetic Results at 1 Year of Loading


Thoma et al (2014)

Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two dental implant systems: demographic and radiographic results at one year of loading


Trammell et al (2009)

A prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of platform-switched and matched-abutment implants in short-span partial denture situations


Ozkan et al (2007)

Three-year treatment outcomes with three brands of implants placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible of partially edentulous patients


Zembic et al (2013)

Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single-implant crowns in canine and posterior regions


Zetterqvist et al (2010)

A prospective, multicenter, randomized-controlled 5-year study of hybrid and fully etched implants for the incidence of peri-implantitis



Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369d



Willer et al (2003)

Survival rate of IMZ implants: a prospective 10-year analysis Specific length was not reported

Wittneben et al (2017)

Esthetic and Clinical Performance of Implant-Supported All-Ceramic Crowns Made with Prefabricated or CAD/CAM Zirconia Abutments: a Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial


Yi et al (2001) Implant-supported fixed prostheses for the rehabilitation of periodontally compromised dentitions: a 3-year prospective clinical study


Tsoukaki et al (2013)

Clinical, radiographic, microbiological, and immunological outcomes of flapped vs. flapless dental implants: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial


Tunchel et al (2016)

3D Printing/Additive Manufacturing Single Titanium Dental Implants: A Prospective Multicenter Study with 3 Years of Follow-Up


Wannfors et al (1999)

A prospective clinical evaluation of different single-tooth restoration designs on osseointegrated implants. A 3-year follow-up of Brånemark implants


Rocha et al (2016)

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial


Sanchez-Siles et al (2016)

Crestal bone loss around submerged and non-submerged implants during the osseointegration phase with different healing abutment designs: a randomized prospective clinical study


Schätzle et al (2009)

Stability change of chemically modified sandblasted/acid-etched titanium palatal implants. A randomized-controlled clinical trial


Piek et al (2013) One-year survival rate outcomes of innovative dental implants: a prospective clinical study Specific length was not reported

Schliephake et al (2012)

Early loading of surface modified implants in the posterior mandible - 5 year results of an open prospective non-controlled study


Olsson et al (1995)

MkII- -a modified self-tapping Brånemark implant: 3-year results of a controlled prospective pilot study Specific length was not reported

Sunitha et al (2013)

Flapless implant surgery: a 2-year follow-up study of 40 implants Specific length was not reported

Tallarico et al (2011)

Clinical and radiological outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage implant placement: 1-year results of a randomised clinical trial


Tallarico et al (2011)

A prospective case-control clinical trial comparing 1- and 2-stage Nobel Biocare TiUnite implants: resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell Mentor during integration


Rodriguez et al (2000)

Survival of various implant-supported prosthesis designs following 36 months of clinical function Specific length was not reported

Van Nimwegen et al (2015)

Treatment Outcome of Two Adjacent Implant-Supported Restorations with Different Implant Platform Designs in the Esthetic Region: A Five-Year Randomized Clinical Trial


Nordin et al (2004)

A 3-arm study of early loading of rough-surfaced implants in the completely edentulous maxilla and in the edentulous posterior maxilla and mandible: Results after 1 year of loading


Schropp et al (2014)

Early, delayed, or late single implant placement: 10-year results from a randomized controlled clinical trial


Strietzel et al (2007)

Oral rehabilitation using Camlog screw-cylinder implants with a particle-blasted and acid-etched microstructured surface. Results from a prospective study with special consideration of short implants


Tymstra et al (2011)

Dental implant treatment for two adjacent missing teeth in the maxillary aesthetic zone: a comparative pilot study and test of principle


Tealdo et al (2011)

Immediate versus delayed loading of dental implants in edentulous maxillae: a 36-month prospective study


van Steenberghe et al (2000)

A prospective split-mouth comparative study of two screw-shaped self-tapping pure titanium implant systems


O’Brien (2004) A 6-year prospective study of 620 stress-diversion surface (SDS) dental implants Specific length was not reported

Calvo-Guirado et al (2016)

Evaluation of extra short 4-mm implants in mandibular edentulous patients with reduced bone height in comparison with standard implants: a 12-month results


Haas et al (1995) Brånemark single tooth implants: a preliminary report of 76 implants. Specific length was not reported

Henry et al (1997)

Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: A prospective 5- year multicenter study Specific length was not reported

Jemt et al (1998) Customized titanium single-implant abutments: 2-year follow-up pilot study. Specific length was not reported

Degidi et al (2015)

10-year prospective cohort follow-up of immediately restored XiVE implants. Specific length was not reported

Degidi et al (2009)

A comparison between immediate loading and immediate restoration in cases of partial posterior mandibular edentulism: a 3-year randomized clinical trial



Ravidà et al

1369e Volume 34, Number 6, 2019



Jungner et al (2005)

Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® mark III™) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol


Karabuda et al (2011)

Stability, marginal bone loss and survival of standard and modified sand‐blasted, acid‐etched implants in bilateral edentulous spaces: a prospective 15‐month evaluation


Danny et al (2011)

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActiveTM dental implants Specific length was not reported

Thilander et al (1999)

Single implants in the upper incisor region and their relationship to the adjacent teeth. An 8-year follow-up study


Pollizi et al (1999)

Clinical application of narrow Brånemark System implants for single-tooth restorations


Scheller et al (1998)

A 5-year multicenter study on implant-supported single crown restorations Specific length was not reported

Lemmerman et al (2005)

Osseointegrated Dental Implants in Private Practice: A Long-Term Case Series Study Specific length was not reported

Wyatt et al (1998)

Treatment Outcomes of Patients With Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Prostheses Specific length was not reported

Buser et al (1997)

Clinical trials on implants in regenerated bone Specific length was not reported


Prospective clinical evaluation of 1920 Morse taper connection implants:results after 4 years of functional loading


Gibbard et al (2004)

5-year prospective study of implant-supported single-tooth replacements. Specific length was not reported

Gotfredsen et al (2012)

A 10‐Year Prospective Study of Single Tooth Implants Placed in the Anterior Maxilla Specific length was not reported

Arnhart et al (2012)

Comparison of variable-thread tapered implant designs to a standard tapered implant design after immediate loading. A 3-year multicentre randomised controlled trial


Nikzad et al (2010)

Custom-made radiographic template, computed tomography, and computer-assisted flapless surgery for treatment planning in partial edentulous patients: a prospective 12-month study


Quirynen et al (1992)

Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system.


Vigolo et al (2015)

Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change around multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a 10-year randomized controlled trial



Immediate loading of fixed cross-arch prostheses supported by flapless-placed supershort or long implants: 1-year results from a randomised controlled trial


Taschieri et al (2018)

Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: Three-year results of a randomized clinical study.


Becker et al (2016)

Dental implants in an aged population: evaluation of periodontal health, bone loss, implant survival, and quality of life.



A 10-Year Prospective Study of Single Tooth Implants Placed in the Anterior Maxilla Specific length was not reported

Jemt et al (2009) Cemented CeraOne and porcelain fused to TiAdapt abutment single-implant crown restorations: a 10-year comparative follow-up study


Kreissl et al (2007)

Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years


Guerra et al (2014)

Platform switch versus platform match in the posterior mandible – 1-year results of a multicentre randomized clinical trial


Kim et al (2015) Resonance frequency analysis as a predictor of early implant failure in the partially edentulous posterior maxilla following immediate nonfunctional loading or delayed loading with single unit restorations.


Henry et al (1996)

Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 5-year multicenter study Specific length was not reported

Grandi et al (2013)

Immediate provisionalisation of single post-extractive implants versus implants placed in healed sites in the anterior maxilla: 1-year results from a multicentre controlled cohort study.


Piek et al (2013) One-year survival rate outcomes of innovative dental implants: a prospective clinical study. Specific length was not reported

Ganeles et al (2008)

Immediate and early loading of Straumann implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: 1‐year results from a prospective multicenter study


Schliephake et al (2012)

Early loading of surface modified implants in the posterior mandible - 5 year results of an open prospective non-controlled study.



Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369f



Nissan et al (2011)

Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Specific length was not reported

Karaky et al (2011)

Antibiotic prophylaxis and early dental implant failure: a quasi-random controlled clinical trial Specific length was not reported


Prospective clinical evaluation of 201 direct laser metal forming implants: results from a 1-year multicenter study.

Anterior implants


Prospective clinical evaluation of 201 direct laser metal forming implants: results from a 1-year multicenter study

Anterior implants

Arduino et al (2015)

Single preoperative dose of prophylactic amoxicillin versus a 2-day postoperative course in dental implant surgery: A two-centre randomised controlled trial


Ignacio Sanz Martin et al (2015)

Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two dental implant types: volumetric soft tissue changes at 1 year of loading


Nolan et al (2014)

The influence of prophylactic antibiotic administration on post-operative morbidity in dental implant surgery. A prospective double blind randomized controlled clinical trial


Arnhart et al (2012)

Impact of implant surface topography: a clinical study with a mean functional loading time of 85 months


Patel et al (2013) Radiographic and clinical outcomes of implants placed in ridge preserved sites: a 12-month post-loading follow-up.


Sasse et al (2012)

Randomized clinical trial on single retainer all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: Influence of the bonding system after up to 55 months.


Margossian et al (2012)

Immediate loading of mandibular dental implants in partially edentulous patients: a prospective randomized comparative study.


Hosseini et al (2011)

A 1-year randomised controlled trial comparing zirconia versus metal-ceramic implant supported single-tooth restorations.


Al-Nawas et al (2013)

Multicenter randomized clinical trial: early loading of implants in maxillary bone Specific length was not reported

Larsson et al (2010)

Five-year follow-up of implant-supported Y-TZP and ZTA fixed dental prostheses. A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing two different material systems.


Shibly et al (2012)

Immediate implants with immediate loading vs. conventional loading: 1-year randomized clinical trial Specific length was not reported

Capelli et al (2010)

A 5-year report from a multicentre randomised clinical trial: immediate non-occlusal versus early loading of dental implants in partially edentulous patients.


Esposito et al (2010)

Effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics at placement of dental implants: a pragmatic multicentre placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial


Luongo et al (2005)

Early loading of sandblasted, acid-etched implants in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year follow-up report from a multicenter 3-year prospective study.


Anitua E et al (2009)

A multicentre placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial of antibiotic prophylaxis for placement of single dental implants.


Widmark et al (2001)

Rehabilitation of patients with severely resorbed maxillae by means of implants with or without bone grafts: a 3- to 5-year follow-up clinical report.


Baer et al (2013) A 3-year multicenter study of marginal bone level and soft tissue health of a 1-piece implant. Specific length was not reported

Esquivel-Upshaw et al (2013)

Randomized clinical trial of implant-supported ceramic-ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: preliminary results.


Rocci et al (2013) Immediate loading of Brånemark system TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible, part II: a randomized open-ended 9-year follow-up clinical trial


Cecchinato et al (2008)

Bone level alterations at implants placed in the posterior segments of the dentition: outcome of submerged/non-submerged healing. A 5-year multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial


Albrektsson et al (2007)

Survival of NobelDirect implants: an analysis of 550 consecutively placed implants at 18 different clinical centers.


Rocci et al (2003)

Immediate loading of Brånemark System TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible: a randomized open-ended clinical trial


Piao et al (2009) Marginal bone around three different implant systems: radiographic evaluation after 1 year. Specific length was not reported

Cho et al (2004) Screw loosening for standard and wide diameter implants in partially edentulous cases: 3- to 7-year longitudinal data.


Jeffcoat et al (2003)

A comparison of hydroxyapatite (HA) -coated threaded, HA-coated cylindric, and titanium threaded endosseous dental implants.



Ravidà et al

1369g Volume 34, Number 6, 2019



Taylor et al (2004)

Radiographic and clinical evaluation of single-tooth Biolok implants: a 5-year study. Specific length was not reported


Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Specific length was not reported

Karoussis et al (2004)

Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System.


Lambert et al (2000)

The influence of smoking on 3-year clinical success of osseointegrated dental implants. Specific length was not reported


Nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla. Specific length was not reported

Misch et al (2006)

Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study.

Retrospective study

Bach et al (2013) Assessment of Short Dental Implants Restored With Single-Unit Nonsplinted Restorations Retrospective study

de Molon et al (2017)

Evaluation of Short and Regular Implants after Prosthesis Placement in the Mandible: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Retrospective study

Goenè et al (2005)

Performance of short implants in partial restorations: 3-year follow-up of Osseotite implants. Retrospective study

Ortorp et al (2008)

Laser-welded titanium frameworks supported by implants in the partially edentulous mandible: a 10-year comparative follow-up study.

Retrospective study

Jung et al (2008) Evaluation of mandibular posterior single implants with two different surfaces: a 5-year comparative study

Retrospective study

Bischof et al (2006)

A five-year life-table analysis on wideneck ITI implants with prosthetic evaluation and radiographic analysis:results from a private practice

Retrospective study

Khayat et al (2001)

An investigation of 131 consecutively placed wide screw-vent implants. Retrospective study

Widmark et al (2003)

Mk III: a third generation of the self-tapping Brånemark System implant, including the new Stargrip internal grip design. A 1-year prospective four-center study

Complete edentulism cases

Östman et al (2013)

Immediate occlusal loading of NanoTite™ tapered implants: a prospective 1-year clinical and radiographic study.


Henry et al (2003)

Prospective multicenter study on immediate rehabilitation of edentulous lower jaws according to the Brånemark Novum protocol.


Sethi et al (2000) The use of angulated abutments in implant dentistry: five-year clinical results of an ongoing prospective study.


Vroom et al (2009)

Effect of surface topography of screw-shaped titanium implants in humans on clinical and radiographic parameters: a 12-year prospective study.


Heydenrijk et al (2002)

Two-part implants inserted in a one-stage or a two-stage procedure. A prospective comparative study. Complete edentulism cases

Ferrigno et al (2018)

A long-term follow-up study of non-submerged ITI implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Part I: Ten-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 1286 implants.


Helldén et al (2003)

A prospective 5-year multicenter study of the Cresco implantology concept. Complete edentulism cases

Willer et al (2003)

Survival rate of IMZ implants: a prospective 10-year analysis. Complete edentulism cases

Jokstad A, et al (2014)

Immediate function on the day of surgery compared with a delayed implant loading process in the mandible: a randomized clinical trial over 5 years.


Makkonen et al (1997)

A 5-year prospective clinical study of Astra Tech dental implants supporting fixed bridges or overdentures in the edentulous mandible


Fischer et al (2012)

Prospective 10‐Year Cohort Study Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) on Implant‐Supported Full‐Arch Maxillary Prostheses. Part 1: Sandblasted and Acid‐Etched Implants and Mucosal Tissue



Immediate versus early loading of 6.5 mm-long flapless-placed single implants: a 4-year after loading report of a split-mouth randomised controlled trial


Brocard et al (2000)

A multicenter report on 1,022 consecutively placed ITI implants: a 7-year longitudinal study Complete edentulism cases

Randow et al (1999)

Immediate functional loading of Brånemark dental implants. An 18-month clinical follow-up study Complete edentulism cases

Rasmusson et al (2005)

A 10-year follow-up study of titanium dioxide-blasted implants Complete edentulism cases

Romeo et al (2004)

Long-term Survival and Success of Oral Implants in the Treatment of Full and Partial Arches: A 7-year Prospective Study with the ITI Dental Implant System



Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369h



Ostman et al (2012)

Ten years later. Results from a prospective single-centre clinical study on 121 oxidized (TiUnite™) Brånemark implants in 46 patients


Tözüm et al (2007)

The effect of delayed versus early loading on nitric oxide metabolism around dental implants: an 18-month comparative follow-up study


Collaert (2011) A 2‐year prospective study on immediate loading with fluoride‐modified implants in the edentulous mandible


Froberg et al (2006)

Immediate loading of Brånemark System Implants: a comparison between TiUnite and turned implants placed in the anterior mandible.


Kielbassa et al (2009)

Randomized controlled trial comparing a variable-thread novel tapered and a standard tapered implant: interim one-year results.


Johansson et al (2008)

Digitally Planned, Immediately Loaded Dental Implants with Prefabricated Prostheses in the Reconstruction of Edentulous Maxillae: A 1-Year Prospective, Multicenter Study


Naert et al (1999)

A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction


Melo et al (2009) A prospective follow-up study of 44 mandibular immediately loaded implants using resonance frequency analysis: Preliminary 1-Year results



Immediate loading of fixed cross arch protesies supported by flapless placed super short or long implants : 1 year results from randomized control trial


Mau et al (2003) Randomized multicenter comparison of 2 IMZ and 4 TPS screw implants supporting bar-retained overdentures in 425 edentulous mandibles


Jokstad et al (2018)

Comparison of two early loading protocols in full arch reconstructions in the edentulous maxilla using the Cresco prosthetic system: a three-arm parallel group randomized-controlled trial


Heschl et al (2011)

Immediate rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible with screw type implants: results after up to 10 years of clinical function.


Becktor et al (2007)

A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: conventional loading using fixed prostheses.


Bruggenkate et al (1998)

Short (6-mm) nonsubmerged dental implants: results of a Multicenter clinical trial of 1 to 7 years. Complete edentulism cases

Moheng (2016) Clinical and biologic factors related to oral implant failure: a 2-year follow-up study. Complete edentulism cases

Torroella-Saura et al (2015)

Effect of implant design in immediate loading. A randomized, controlled, split-mouth, prospective clinical trial


Vercruyssen et al (2014)

Implant- and patient-centred outcomes of guided surgery, a 1-year follow-up: an RCT comparing guided surgery with conventional implant placement


Morris et al (2000)

Survival and stability (PTVs) of six implant designs from placement to 36 months. Complete edentulism cases

Al-Nawas et al (2012)

A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Titanium-13Zirconium versus Titanium Grade IV small-diameter bone level implants in edentulous mandibles--results from a 1-year observation period


Stellingsma et al (2003)

Satisfaction and psychosocial aspects ofpatients with an extremely resorbedmandible treated with implant-retained overdenture


Pieri et al (2011) Influence of implant-abutment interface design on bone and soft tissue levels around immediately placed and restored single tooth implants: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Immediate placement

Maló et al (2003) Immediate and Early Function of Brånemark System Implants Placed in the Esthetic Zone: A 1‐Year Prospective Clinical Multicenter Study

Immediate placement


Immediate loading versus immediate provisionalization of maxillary single-tooth replacements: a prospective randomized study with BioComp implants

Immediate placement

Kielbassa et al (2009)

Randomized controlled trial comparing a variable-thread novel tapered and a standard tapered implant:Interim one-year results.

Immediate placement

Meizi et al (2014) New-design dental implants: a 1-year prospective clinical study of 344 consecutively placed implants comparing immediate loading versus delayed loading and flapless versus full-thickness flap

Immediate placement

Crespi et al (2009)

Radiographic eval-uation of marginal bone levels around platform-switched and non-platform-switched implants used inan immediate loading protocol

Immediate placement

Testori et al (2003)

Immediate non-occlusal loading vs. early loading in partially edentulous patients Immediate placement

Becker et al (2013)

Prospective clinical trial evaluating a new implant system for implant survival, implant stability and radiographic bone changes.

Immediate placement

Bogaerde et al (2010)

Immediate/Early function of Neoss implants placed in maxillas and posterior mandibles: an 18-month prospective case series study.

Immediate placement

Siciliano Vi et al (2009)

Soft tissues healing at immediate transmucosal implants placed into molar extraction sites with buccal self-contained dehiscences. A 12-month controlled clinical trial

Immediate placement


Ravidà et al

1369i Volume 34, Number 6, 2019



Zembic et al (2010)

Immediate vs. early loading of dental implants: 3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial Immediate placement

Zuffetti et al (2016)

A 10-year report from a multicentre randomised controlled trial: immediate non-occlusal versus early loading of dental implants in partially edentulous patients

Immediate placement

Zuffetti et al (2013)

Socket grafting with or without buccal augmentation with anorganic bovine bone at immediate post-extractive implants: 6-month after loading results from a multicenter randomised controlled clinical trial

Immediate placement

Grandi et al (2013)

A 3-year report from a multicentre randomised controlled trial: immediately versus early loaded implants in partially edentulous patients.

Immediate placement

Ormianer et al (2006)

Long-term clinical evaluation of tapered multi-threaded implants: results and influences of potential risk factors.

Immediate placement

Canullo et al (2009)

Double-blind randomized controlled trial study on post-extraction immediately restored implants using the switching platform concept: soft tissue response. Preliminary report

Immediate placement


A Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study of the Osseotite Implant: Four-Year Interim Report

Immediate placement

Wagenberg et al (1999)

Prospective study of the Langer modification of the Brånemark 5.0-mm implant: 3-year results Immediate placement

Pozzi A et al (2015)

Immediate loading with a novel implant featured by variable-threaded geometry, internal conical connection and platform shifting: three-year results from a prospective cohort study.

Immediate placement

Grandi et al (2015)

Immediate, early (3 weeks) and conventional loading (4 months) of single implants: Preliminary data at 1 year after loading from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled triala

Immediate placement


Immediate/Early function of Neoss implants placed in maxillas and posterior mandibles: an 18-month prospective case series study.

Bone augmentation

Jung et al (2015) Evaluation of a one-piece ceramic implant used for single-tooth replacement and three-unit fixed partial dentures: a prospective cohort clinical trial

Bone augmentation

Chen et al (2007) A prospective clinical study of non-submerged immediate implants: clinical outcomes and esthetic results

Bone augmentation

Buser et al (2002)

Longterm stability of osseointegrated implants in augmented bone: A 5-year prospective study in partially edentulous patients.

Bone augmentation

Orenstein et al (2000)

Variables affecting survival of single-tooth hydroxyapatite-coated implants in anterior maxillae at 3 years

Bone augmentation

Winkler et al (2000)

Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter Bone augmentation

Ioannidis et al (2015)

Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns:3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study

Bone augmentation

Hallman M et al (2001)

A prospective study of treatment of severely resorbed maxillae with narrow nonsubmerged implants: Results after 1 year of loading

Bone augmentation

Esposito et al (2013)

Safety and efficacy of a biomimetic monolayer of permanently bound multi-phosphonic acid molecules on dental implants: 1 year post-loading results from a pilot quadruple-blinded randomised controlled trial

Bone augmentation


Early implant loading in the atrophic posterior maxilla: 1-stage lateral versus crestal sinus lift and 8 mm hydroxyapatite-coated implants. A 5-year randomised controlled trial

Bone augmentation


Early loading of implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla: lateral sinus lift with autogenous bone and Bio-Oss versus crestal mini sinus lift and 8-mm hydroxyapatite-coated implants. A randomised controlled clinical trial

Bone augmentation

Brocard et al (2000)

A multicenter report on 1,022 consecutively placed ITI implants Bone augmentation

Thoma et al (2014)

Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two dental implant systems: demographic and radiographic results at one year of loading.

Bone augmentation

Luongo et al (2015)

Do repeated changes of abutments have any influence on the stability of peri-implant tissues? Four-month post-loading preliminary results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Bone augmentation

Bornstein et al (2008)

Performance of dental implants after staged sinus floor elevation procedures: 5-year results of a prospective study in partially edentulous patients.

Bone augmentation

Canullo et al (2010)

Platform switching and marginal bone-level alterations: The results of a randomized-controlled trial Bone augmentation

Becker et al (2017)

Clinical performance of two‐piece zirconia implants in the posterior mandible and maxilla: a prospective cohort study over 2 years

Bone augmentation

Yu et al (2017) Outcomes of 6.5-mm Hydrophilic Implants and Long Implants Placed with Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Comparison

Bone augmentation

Corrente et al (2009)

Short porous implants in the posterior maxilla: a 3-year report of a prospective study. Bone augmentation


Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369j



Naert et al (2002)

Biologic outcome of implants supported restirstions in the treatment of partial edentualism Bone augmentation

Angelis et al (2014)

Platform switching versus conventional technique: a randomized controlled clinical trial Involved anterior implants


Immediate functional loading of implants placed with flapless surgery versus conventional implants in partially edentulous patients: a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial

Involved anterior implants

Merli et al (2012) Immediate versus early non-occlusal loading of dental implants placed flapless in partially edentulous patients: a 3-year randomized clinical trial


Ostman et al (2007)

Direct loading of Nobel Direct and Nobel Perfect one-piece implants: a 1-year prospective clinical and radiographic study


Mayer et al (2002)

The single-tooth implant: A viable alternative for single-tooth replacement Involved anterior implants

Turkyilmaz I et al (2007)

A 4-year prospective clinical and radiological study of maxillary dental implants supporting single-tooth crowns using early and delayed loading protocols.


Karlsson et al (1997)

Single-tooth replacement by osseointegrated Astra Tech dental implants: a 2-year report Involved anterior implants

Karlsson et al (1998)

A 2-year report on maxillary and mandibular fixed partial dentures supported by Astra Tech dental implants. A comparison of 2 implants with different surface textures


Benic et al (2013)

Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study


Khayat et al (2007)

Prospective clinical evaluation of 835 multithreaded tapered screw-vent implants: results after two years of functional loading.


Mericske-Stern et al (2001)

Clinical evaluation and prosthetic complications of single tooth replacements by non-submerged implants


Henry et al .2003 Prospective multicenter study on immediate rehabilitation of edentulous lower jaws according to the Brånemark Novum protocol.


Heinemann et al (2016)

Immediate occluding definitive partial fixed prosthesis versus non-occluding provisional restorations- 4-month post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial


Irinakis T et al (2009)

Clinical evaluation of the NobelActive implant system: a case series of 107 consecutively placed implants and a review of the implant features.



Immediate nonocclusal versus early loading of dental implants in partially edentulous patients: 1-year results from a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial


Esposito et al, (2016)

Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 5-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controllod trial


Cooper et al (2007)

Three-year evaluation of single-tooth implants restored 3 weeks after 1-stage surgery. Involved anterior implants

Hahn et al (2011) Four-year treatment and radiographic outcomes of 1-piece implants used in immediate function: a prospective study in a single private practice.


Eghbali et al (2012)

Single implant treatment in healing versus healed sites of the anterior maxilla: a clinical and radiographic evaluation.


Schropp et al (2008)

Clinical outcome and patient satisfaction following full-flap elevation for early and delayed placement of single-tooth implants: a 5-year randomized study.


De Rouck (2008) Immediate single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla: a 1-year case cohort study on hard and soft tissue response.


Winker et al (2000)

Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter. anterior endentulous


A three-year follow-up report of a comparative study of ITI Dental Implants and Brånemark System implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla.


Zembic A et al (2009)

Randomized-controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results.


Davarpanah et al (2001)

Osseotite implant: 3-year prospective multicenter evaluation. Involved anterior implants


A prospective 5-year study of fixed partial prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2-blasted surface.


Weber et al (2000)

A 5-year prospective clinical and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants. Involved anterior implants


Prospective clinical evaluation of 307 single-tooth morse taper-connection implants: a multicenter study.


Abtahi et al (2016)

Randomized trial of bisphosphonate-coated dental implants Involved anterior implants


Ravidà et al

1369k Volume 34, Number 6, 2019



Weng et al (2003)

Prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up.


Jones et al (1999)

A 5-year comparison of hydroxyapatite-coated titanium plasma-sprayed and titanium plasma-sprayed cylinder dental implants.


Deporte et al (1998)

Use of the Endopore dental implant to restore single teeth in the maxilla: protocol and early results. Involved anterior implants

Cochran et al (2011)

A 5-year prospective multicenter study of early loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface.


Barone et al (2012)

A randomized clinical trial to evaluate and compare implants placed in augmented versus non-augmented extraction sockets: 3-year results.



Immediate loading versus immediate provisionalization of maxillary single-tooth replacements: a prospective randomized study with BioComp implants.


Felice et al (2014)

A comparison of two dental implant systems in partially edentolous patients: 1-year post loading results from a pragmatic multicentre randomised


Dahlin et al (2013)

One-year results of a clinical and radiological prospective multicenter study on NEOSS® dental implants.


Ana Carrillo de Albornoz et al (2014)

A randomized trial on the aesthetic outcomes of implant supported restorations with zirconia or titanium abutments



Early function of splinted implants in maxillas and posterior mandibles, using Brånemark System Tiunite implants: an 18-month prospective clinical multicenter study.

Machined implants

Polizzi et al (2000)

Immediate and delayed implant placement into extraction sockets: a 5-year report. Machined implants

Schincaglia et al (2007)

Immediate loading of dental implants supporting fixed partial dentures in the posterior mandible: a randomized controlled split-mouth study--machined versus titanium oxide implant surface.

Machined implants

Henry et al (1995)

Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement in general practice: a 1-year report from a multicentre prospective study.

Machined implants


Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369l

Appendix Table 2 Bias Risk Assessment for the Included RCTS Using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (Higgins et al, 2011)

Study

Random sequence generation

Allocation concealment

Blinding of participants

and personnel

Blinding of outcome

assessment

Incomplete outcome

data addresses

Selective reporting

Other bias

Overall risk of bias

Bolle et al 2018 Low Low High Low Low Low Low Moderate

Hadzik et al 2018 High High High Unclear Low Low Unclear High

Ayna et al 2018 High High High Unclear Low Unclear Low High

Bernardi et al 2018 High High High High Low Unclear Low High

Guarnieri et al 2018 Low Low Low Unclear Low Low Low Moderate

Gastaldi et al 2018 Low Low Unclear Low Low Low Low Moderate

Naenni et al 2018 Low Low High Low Low Low Low Moderate

Felice et al 2018 Low Low High High Low Low Unclear High

Taschieri et al 2018 Low Low Low Unclear Low Low Unclear High

Zadeh et al 2018 Low Low Unclear Low Low Low Low Moderate

Waechter et al 2017 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate

Pohl et al 2017 Low Low High Unclear Low Low Low High

Bechara et al 2017 Low Low High Unclear Low Low Low Moderate

Gastaldi et al 2017 Low Low Unclear Low Low Low Low Moderate

Tallarico et al 2017 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Bömicke et al 2017 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Akoglan et al 2017 High High High Unclear Low Low Unclear High

Felice et al 2016 Low Low Low High Low Low Low Moderate

Rossi et al 2016 Low Low High Low Low Low Low Moderate

Al-Hashedi et al 2016

Low Unclear Low Low Low Low Low Moderate

Nedir et al 2016 Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Low Low Unclear High

Clelland et al 2016 Unclear Unclear Unclear Low Low Low Low High

Esposito et al 2014 Low Unclear Low Low Low Low Low Moderate

Romeo et al 2014 Low Low High Low Low Low Low Moderate

Cannullo et al 2014 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Pozzi et al 2014 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Kim et al 2013 Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Low Low Low High

Telleman et al 2013 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Telleman et al 2012 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Canullo et al 2012 Low Low Low Unclear Low Low Low Moderate

Meloni et al 2012 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Barewal et al 2012 Low Low Low Unclear Low Low Low Moderate

Felice et al2010 Low Low Low Unclear Low Low Unclear Moderate

Park et al 2010 Low Low Low Unclear Low Low Low Moderate

Roccuzzo et al 2008 Low High High Unclear Low Low Low High

Schincaglia et al 2008

High High High Unclear Low Low Unclear High

Vigolo et al 2006 High High High Unclear Low Low Unclear High

Salvi et al 2004 High High High Low Low Low Low High

Rocci et al 2003 High High High Low Low Low Low High


Ravidà et al

1369m Volume 34, Number 6, 2019

Appendix Table 3 Quality Assessment of the Included Cohort Studies Using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

Study Selection Comparability Outcome/exposure

Hadzik et al (2018) ★★ ★ ★★★Shilpa et al (2018) ★★ ★ ★Malchiodi et al (2018) ★★ ★ ★★Han et al (2018) ★★★ ★★ ★★★Benlidayi et al (2018) ★★ ★ ★Adanez et al (2018) ★★ ★ ★★Rossi et al (2017) ★★ ★★ ★★★Villarinho et al (2017) ★★★ ★★ ★★★Lee et al (2016) ★★ ★ ★★★Ghariani et al (2016) ★ ★ ★Malmstrom et al (2016) ★★ ★ ★★★Mangano et al (2016) ★★ ★ ★★★★Moergel et al (2015) ★★ ★ ★★Markovic et al (2015) ★★ ★ ★Rossi et al (2015) ★★★ ★★ ★★★Bratu et al (2014) ★★ ★ ★★★Mangano et al (2013) ★★★ ★★ ★★★★Kennedy et al (2013) ★★★ ★ ★★★Pieri et al (2012) ★★ ★ ★★★Canullo et al (2012) ★★★★ ★ ★★★★Enkling et al (2011) ★★ ★ ★★★Alghamdi et al (2011) ★★ ★ ★★Payer et al (2010) ★★ ★★ ★★★MacDonald et al (2009) ★★★★ ★ ★★Vigolo et al (2009) ★★★★ ★★ ★★★Achilli et al (2007) ★★ ★ ★★Roccuzzo et al (2002) ★★★ ★★ ★★★★Palmer et al (2000) ★★★ ★★ ★★★

Appendix Table 4 Characteristics of Included Articles

Reference No. (#) First Author (year of publication) Type and Design

Population characteristics

1. No. of patients total2. Mean Age 3. Range of Age

Included Patients

1. Controlled diabetic patients (Y/N)2. Smokers (Y/N) 3. Bruxers (Y/N) 4. Adequate periodontal control (Y/N)

Implant characteristics

1. Total of included implants 2. Location (max;mand) 3. System 4. Surface treatment5. Length (n of implants) 6. Diameter 7. Bone or tissue level 8. Stages

Prosthetic characteristics

1. Abutment connection2. Type of retention 3. Splinted/non-splinted 4. Timing of restoration

Follow-up

1. Follow-up (mo) 2. Early failures 3. Delayed failures

#1Bernardi et al 2018RCT

1. 362. 623. 43–77

1. Y2. Y3. Y4. Y

1. 862. Mand345. 6 mm (86)6. 4.1 mm7. BL8. N/A

1. Morse Tapered2. Cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. N/A

1. 122. 13. 4

Max = maxilla; mand = mandible.‡Straumann AG (Basel, Switzerland); †Astra Tech (Dentsply, Sirona Implants); ††Zimmer Biomet; †††MegaGen Implant; ‡‡Biohorizons; ‡†Twinkon Global D; ‡††Equinox Medical Technologies B.V. de Stuwdam; †‡†Winsix, BioSAFin; ††‡ Hi-Tec Implant; §‡Osstem; §†Bicon Dental Implants; †§ Friadent; ‡§Implants; §††Signo Vinces Europa; §‡‡Centurion; ØNu- cleoss Implants; ‡Ø Nobel Biocare); Ø†CAMLOG Biotechnologies; §‡Ø Dentium; §§§Sweden & Martina; §‡§MIS Implants; ‡§§Innova, Sybron Dental.


Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369n





Included Patients






Follow-up


#2Adanez et al 2018Prospective Split Mouth

1. 102. N/A3. N/A

1. Y2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 402. Mand3. Dentium §‡Ø

45. 7mm (20) – 10mm (15) 12mm (5)6. 4 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Screw3. Splinted4. Late

1. 122. 03. 0

#3Bolle et al (2018)RCT

1. 402. 59–603. 25–77

1. Y2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 802. Max/Mand3. Twinkon Universal SA2 ‡†4. Sand-blasted acid-etched5. 4 mm (80)6. 4 mm - 4.5 mm7. STL8. 2

1. External2. Screw/Cement3. Splinted4. Late

1. 122. 53. 0

#4Hadzik et al (2018)RCT

1. 152. 45.53. 26–64

1. N/R2. N3. N4. N/R

1. 152. Max3. Astra, OsseoSpeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 6mm (15)6. 4 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 362. 13. 0

#5Shilpa et al (2018)Prospective cohort

1. 112. 35.583. N/R

1. Y2. N/R3. N/R4. Y

1. 122. Max/Mand3. Equinox Myriad Plus‡††

4. Calcium oxidized, nano-porous surface5. 8 mm (12)6. N/R7. BL8. 2


1. 122. 03. 0

#6Malchiodi et al (2018)Prospective cohort

1. 472. 603. 39–81

1. Y2. Y3. Y4. N/R

1. 662. Max/Mand3. K implants and TTx implants †‡†

4. Sandblasted and etched5. 6 mm (66)6. 3.8 mm - 4.5 mm - 5.2 mm7. STL8. 2

1. External2. Cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Late

1. 482. 23. 2

#7Ayna et al (2018)RCT

1. 632. 543. N/R

1. Y2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 632. Max3. LGI plus ††‡4. Sand-blasted and acid-etched5. 6 mm (63)6. 5 mm - 6 mm7. BL8. 1 or 2

1. Internal2. Screw3. Non-splinted4. Immediate/Late

1. 602. 03. 3



Ravidà et al

1369o Volume 34, Number 6, 2019





Included Patients






Follow-up


#8Guarnieri et al (2018)RCT

1. 282. 513. 21–82

1. N/R2. Y3. Y4. Y

1. 642. Max/Mand3. Tapered internal Laser-Lok ‡‡4. Laser micro-grooved ‡‡5. 6 mm (14) - 7.5 mm (14) - 9 mm (18) - 10.5 mm (10) - 12 mm (8)6. 4.6 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. N/R3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Late

1. 362. 1 (7.5 mm)3. 0

#9Gastaldi et al (2018)RCT

1. 202. 58.63. 39–80

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 682. Max/Mand3. Rescue †††

4. Nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface.5. 5 mm (68)6. 5 mm7. BL8. 2

1. External2. Screw/Cement3. Splinted, Non-splinted4. Late

1. 362. 03. 2

#10Zadeh et al (2018)RCT

1. 862. 54.83. 26–69

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 1902. Max/Mand3. Astra, Osseospeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 6 mm (102) - 11 mm (88)6. 4 mm7. BL8. 1

1. Internal2. Screw3. Splinted4. Early

1. 362. 33. 1

#11Naenni et al (2018)RCT

1. 402. 56.03. N/R

1. N/R2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 402. Max/Mand3. Straumann, Standard Plus ‡4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLActive)5. 6mm (40)6. 4.17. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. Screw3. Non-Splinted4. Late

1. 602. 03. 4

#12Felice et al (2018)RCT

1. 402. 55 ì3. 42–80

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 802. Max+Mand3. Southern Implants §‡‡4. Roughened grit-blasted surface5. 6mm (80)6. 47. BL8. 2

1. External2. Cement3. Splinted4. Late

1. 362. 03. 2

#13Han et al (2018)Prospective cohort

1. 452. 533. 26–73

1. Y2. Y3. Y4. Y

1. 952. Max/Mand3. Astra, OsseoSpeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 6mm ; 956. 47. BL8. 1 and 2

1. Internal2. Screw3. Splinted4. Early/ Late

1. 362. 43. 0



Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369p





Included Patients






Follow-up


#14Taschieri et al (2018)RCT

1. 272. 523. 31–77

1. Y2. Y3. N4. N/R

1. 422. Max3. Interna Universal /Universal plus Platform §††4. Sand blasted (+ Liquid P-PRP)5. 6.5 mm (14) - 7.5 mm (16) - 8.5 mm (12)6. 3.75 mm - 4 mm - 4.5 mm7. BL8. 2


1. 362. 03. 0

#15Benlidayi et al (2018)Prospective cohort

1. 382. 48.33. 30–71

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. N/R

1. 1472. Max/Mand3. NucleOSS Ø4. Hydrophilic-modified sandblasted acid-etched5. 5mm (16) - 6mm (28) - 7mm (42) - 8mm (2) - 10 mm (23) - 12mm (36)6. 4.8 mm - 5.5 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Late

1. 602. 1 (6mm)3. 1 (5 mm) - 1 (6 mm) - 1 (10 mm)

#16Waechter et al (2017)RCT

1. 202. 50.83. N/R

1. N2. Y3. N/R4. N/R

1. 402. Mand3. Duo, Inttegra §††4. Abrasive blasting and acid treatment5. 10 mm (40)6. 4 mm - 4.6 mm7. BL8. 1

1. External2. N/R3. N/R4. Late

1. 32. 53. 0

#17Pohl et al (2017)RCT

1. 502. 50.53. 25–75

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 672. Max3. Astra, OsseoSpeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 6 mm (67)6. 4 mm7. BL8. 1 and 2

1. Internal2. Screw/Cemented3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 362. 03. 0

#18Bechara et al (2017)RCT

1. 332. 47.53. 21–76

1. Y2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 362. Max3. MegaGen, AnyRidge †††4. Nanostructured calcium incorporated surface5. 6 mm (36)6. 4 mm - 4.5 mm - 5 mm7. BL8. 1 and 2

1. Internal2. Screw/Cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Late

1. 362. 03. 0

#19Rossi et al (2017)Prospective cohort

1. 202. 553. N/R

1. N/R2. Y3. N4. N/R

1. 402. Max/Mand3. Straumann, Standard Plus ‡4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLActive).5. 6mm (40)6. 4.1/4.87. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. Screw3. Splinted4. Early

1. 602. 03. 4



Ravidà et al

1369q Volume 34, Number 6, 2019





Included Patients






Follow-up


#20Villarinho et al (2017)Prospective cohort

1. 202. 523. 25–76

1. Y2. N/R3. Y4. Y

1. 462. Max/Man3. Straumann, Standard Plus ‡4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLActive).5. 6mm (46)6. 4.17. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. Screw3. Non-splinted4. Early

1. 572. 03. 4

#21Gastaldi et al (2017)RCT

1. 102. 53.43. 43–67

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 162. Max3. Certian, Osseotite II †4. Dual acid etched.5. 5mm (10) - 6mm (6)6. 5mm - 6mm7. BL8. 2

1. External2. Screw/cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Late

1. 362. 03. 0

#22Tallarico et al (2017)RCT

1. 122. 56.23. 42–67

1. Y2. N3. N4. N/R

1. 122. Max/Mand3. Ultra-Wide §‡4. Alumina sand blasted, and acid etched5. 8.5 mm (1) - 10 mm (9) - 11.5 mm (2)6. 7 mm5. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Screw3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 122. 03. 0

#23Bömicke et al (2017)RCT

1. 352. 52.93. N/R

1. N/R2. N3. N4. Y

1. 352. Mand3. Nobel Biocare, NobelDirect Groovy and NobelReplace Tapered Groovy ‡Ø4. Anodically oxidized rough surface.5. 10 mm (35)6. 4.3mm - 5 mm7. BL8. 1 and 2

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Non-splinted4. Immediate or late

1. 362. 03. 1

#24Akoglan et al (2017)RCT

1. 392. 41.33. N/R

1. N/R2. Y3. Y4.N/R

1. 392. Max3. DentiumSuperline §‡Ø4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched5. 10 mm (5) - 12 mm (24) - 14 mm (10)6. 3.8 mm - 4.3 mm - 4.8 mm7. BL8. N/R

1. Internal2. Screw3. Non-splinted4. Immediate, Early, Conventional

1. 122. 03. 0

#25Lee et al (2016)Prospective cohort

1. 142. 49.83. 22–70

1. Y2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 182. Max/Mand3. Astra, Osseospeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 9mm (7) - 11mm (9) - 13mm (2)6. 4.5 mm - 5 mm7. BL8. 1


1. 242. 03. 0



Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369r





Included Patients






Follow-up


#26Ghariani et al (2016)Prospective cohort

1. 122. N/R3. N/R

1. N/R2. N/R3. N/R4. N/R

1. 122. Mand3. Integra-CP™ §†4. Hydroxylapatite treated5. 5 mm (1) - 6 mm (6) - 8 mm (5)6. 4.17. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Cement3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 62. 03. 0

#27Malmstrom et al (2016)Prospective cohort

1. 302. 53.6 (12.8)3. 22–80

1. Y2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 802. Max/Mand3. Astra, OsseoSpeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 6 mm (25) - 8 mm (20) - 11 mm (35)6. 4 mm7. BL8. 1 and 2

1. Internal2. Cement3. Splinted, Non-splinted4. Early and Late

1. 242. 1 (6mm)3. 0


1. 752. 533. 20–76

1. Y2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 1102. Max/Mand3. TwinKon ‡†4. Sand-blasted acid-etched5. 4 mm (110)6. 4 mm7. BL8. 1 or 2

1. External2. Screw3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Late

1. 122. 23. 0

#29Rossi et al (2016)RCT

1. 452. 483. 30–74

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 302. Max/Mand3.Staraumann, Standard Plus, SLA ‡4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLActive).5. 6 mm (30) - 10 mm (30)6. 4.1 mm7. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. N/R3. Non-splinted4. Early

1. 602. 1 (6 mm)3. 3 (6 mm) - 1 (10 mm)

#30Mangano et al (2016)Prospective

1. 512. 59.83. 40–75

1. Y2. Y3. Y4. Y

1. 682. Max/Mand3. Leone Ø4. Blasted (Al3O2) and Acid-etched (HNO3)5. 6.5 mm (68)6. 57. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Cement3. Splinted/Non-Splinted4. Late

1. 602. 03. 2

#31Al-Hashedi et al (2016)RCT

1. 202. 47.13. 25-70

1. N/R2. N3. N4. Y

1. 402. Mand3. Bicon §† and Ankylos †§4. Integra-Ti surface and Friadent5. 6 mm (2) - 8mm (38)6. 3.5mm - 4.5 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal2.Cemented3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 122. 03. 0



Ravidà et al

1369s Volume 34, Number 6, 2019





Included Patients






Follow-up


#32Clelland et al (2016)RCT

1. 152. 563. 49–76

1. N/R2. N3. N/R4. N/R

1. 642. Max/Mand3. Astra, Osseospeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 6mm (32) - 8mm (8) - 9mm (12) - 11mm (12)6. 3.5mm - 4mm - 5 mm7. BL8. 1 and 2

1. Internal2. screw/cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Late

1. 362. 03. 1 (6mm)

#33Moergel et al (2016)Prospective cohort

1. 242. 48.93. N/R

1. N/R2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 522. Mand3. CAMLOG Ø†4. Blasted (abrasive), acid-etched5. 11 mm (38) - 13mm (14)6. 3.8 mm - 4.3 mm7. BL8. 1


1. 122. 03. 0

#34Nedir et al (2016)RCT

1. 92. 57.63. N/R

1. N2. N/R3. N/R4. N

1. 172. Max3. Straumann, Standard Plus ‡4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLActive).5. 8 mm (17)6. 4.1mm - 4.8mm7. STL8. N/R

1. Internal2. Screw3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 362. 13. 0

#35Slotte et al (2015)RCT

1. 642. 643. 44–86

1. N2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 772. Mand3. Straumann, Standard Plus ‡4 Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLActive).5. 4 mm ; 776. 4.1 mm7. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. Screw3. Splinted4. Late

1. 602. 03. 6

#36Markovic et al (2015)Prospective cohort

1. 132. 47.13. 33–57

1. N/R2. N/R3. N4. Y

1. 362. Max3. Straumann, Bone level ‡4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLA)5. 10 mm (36)6. 4.1 mm7. BL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted/non-splinted4. Early

1. 122. 03. 0

#37Rossi et al (2015)Prospective cohort

1. 352. 513. 28–70

1. Y2. Y3. Y4. Y

1. 402. mx/md3. Straumann, Standard Plus ‡4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLActive).5. 6mm ; 406. 4.1 mm - 4.8 mm7. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. cement3. non splinted4. early

1. 602. 23. 0



Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369t





Included Patients






Follow-up


#38Esposito et al (2014)RCT

1. 202. 563. 37–70

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 602. Max/Mand3. Rescue †††4. Nanostructured calcium incorporated titanium surface5. 5 mm (60)6. 6 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Cement3. N/R4. Late

1. 362. 13. 4

#39Romeo et al (2014)RCT

1. 242. 113. 37–75

1. Y2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 542. Max/Mand3. Straumann, Standard Plus ‡4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLActive).5. 6 mm (26) - 10 mm (28)6. 4.1 mm7. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted4. Early

1. 602. 1 (6 mm)3. 0

#40Bratu et al (2014)Prospective cohort

1. 162. N/R3. N/R

1. N/R2. N3. N/R4. N/R

1. 332. Max/ Mand3. Seven §‡§4. Sand-blasted and acid-etched surface5. 6mm (33)6. 4.2 mm - 5mm - 6 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Cement3. Splinted4. Late

1. 242. 03. 0

#41Canullo et al (2014)RCT

1. 152. 573. 32–76

1. N/R2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 152. Mand3. Premium SP §§§4. Sand-blasted and acid-etched surface5. 10 mm (30)6. 3.8 mm7. STL8. 1 or 2

1. Internal2. Cement3. Splinted4. Late

1. 152. 13. 0

#42Pozzi et al (2014)RCT

1. 342. 513. 39–59

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 682. Mand3. NobelActive or NobelSpeedy ‡Ø4. Anodically oxidized rough surface.5. 10 mm (36) - 11.5 mm (32)6. 3.9 mm - 4.1 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal/External2. Cemented3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 362. 03. 0



Ravidà et al

1369u Volume 34, Number 6, 2019





Included Patients






Follow-up


#43Kim et al (2013)RCT

1. 502. 503. N/R

1. N/R2. N/R3. N4. N/R

1. 1002. Max/Mand3. Osstem TSIII §‡ or Zimmer TSV implants ††4. TSIII: Resorbable blasted media (RBM) treatment with hydroxyapatite (HA) particles in the upper part and HA coating in the midbody area.5. 10 mm (100)6. 4.5 mm - 4.7 mm - 5.0 mm7. BL TSV: Microtextured (RBA) + HA coating in the mid portion with a machined collar.8. 1

1. Internal2.N/R3. Splinted4. Immediate

1. 122. 03. 0

#44Mangano et al (2014)Prospective cohort

1. 1942. 493. 24–74

1. Y2. Y3. Y4. Y

1. 2152. Max/Mand3. Leone Ø4. Blasted (Al3O2) particles and acid- etched (HNO3)5. 8 mm (215)6. 3.3 mm - 4.1 mm - 4.8 mm7. BL8. 2


1. 1202. 23. 1

#45Telleman et al (2013)RCT

1. 912. 503. 18–70

1. N/R2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 1492. Max/ Mand3. Certain, Prevail; ††4. Dual-acid surface and a discrete crystalline deposition of nanometer-sized CaP particles5. 8.5 mm (149)6. 4.1 mm - 5 mm7. BL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cemented3. N/R4. Late

1. 122. 63. 3

#46Kennedy et al (2013)Prospective cohort

1. 182. 62.43. 49–76

1. N/R2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 822. Max/Mand3. Astra, Osseospeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 6mm (38) - 8 mm (10) - 9 mm (22) - 11 mm (12)6. 3.5 mm - 4 mm - 5 mm7. BL8. 2


1. 62. 7 (6 mm)3. 0

#47Pieri et al (2012)Prospective cohort

1. 252. 64.53. 53–74

1. Y2. Y3. Y4. Y

1. 612. Mand3. Astra, Osseospeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 6mm (61)6. 4mm7. BL8. 2

1. Morse2. Screw/cemented3. Splinted4. Late

1. 242. 23. 0



Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369v





Included Patients






Follow-up


#48Canullo et al (2012)RCT

1. 122. 58.23. N/R

1. N/R2. Y3. N/R4. N/R

1. 82. Max3. Global Implants §§§4. Sand-blasted and acid-etched surface5. 13 mm (8)6. 4.3 mm - 4.8 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted4. Late

1. 182. 03. 0

#49Telleman et al (2012)RCT

1. 752. 55.353. 23–75

1. N/R2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 1132. Max/Mand3. Certain, Prevail ††4. Dual-acid etched surface5. 8.5 mm (113)6. 4.1 mm - 5 mm7. BL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Late

1. 602. 63. 1

#50Meloni et al (2012)RCT

1. 202. 463. 28–70

1. Y2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 402. Mand3. Nobel Biocare, Nobel Replace Tapered Groovy ‡Ø4. Anodically oxidized rough surface.5. 8 mm (4) - 10 mm (36)6. 4.3 mm - 5.0 mm7. BL8. 1 and 2

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Non-splinted4. Immediate and late

1. 122. 03. 0

#51Barewal et al (2012)RCT

1. 252. N/R3. 20–82

1. Y2. N3. N4. Y

1. 262. Max/Mand3. Astra, Osseospeed †4. Fluoride-modified surface.5. 11 mm (13) - 13 mm (13)6. 4 mm7. BL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cement3. Non-splinted4. Immediate or early

1. 362. 03. 0

#52Enkling et al (2011)Prospective cohort

1. 252. 513. N/R

1. N2. N/R3. N/R4. Y

1. 502. Mand3. SIC-Invent, Basel, Switzerland4. Sand blasted, acid etched5. 9.5mm (50)6. 4 mm7. BL8. 2


1. 122. 03. 0

#53Alghamdi et al (2011)Prospective cohort

1. 292. 473. 27–66

1. N2. N3. N4. Y

1. 522. Max/mand3. Straumann, Standard Plus ‡4. Sand blasted large grit and acid etched (SLActive).5. 12mm (52)6. 4.17. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. N/R3. N/R4. Late

1. 122. 03. 0



Ravidà et al

1369w Volume 34, Number 6, 2019





Included Patients






Follow-up



1. 292. 563. 40–83

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. Y

1. 292. Mand3. Nanotite ††4. Dual acid etched, partially covered with nano calcium phosphate crystals.5. 7mm (29)6. 4mm7. STL8. 2

1. External2. Screw3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Late

1. 122. 13. 0

#55Payer et al (2010)Prospective cohort

1. 242. 45.83. 29–63

1. N/R2. N3. N4. Y

1. 402. Mand3. XiVE †4. Large grit-blasting, high temperature acid etching.5. 11 mm (7) - 13 mm (14) - 15 mm (19)6. 3.4 mm - 3.8 mm - 4.5 mm - 5.5 mm7. BL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Immediate

1. 722. 03. 3 (13 mm)

#56Park et al (2010)RCT

1. 532. 483. N/R

1. N/R2. Y3. N/R4. N/R

1. 712. Mand3. Osstem SSII §‡ and Straumann Standard Plus SLA ‡4. Osstem: Resorbable media blast (RBM) Straumann: Sand blasted large grit and acid etched5. 10 mm (75)6. 4.1 mm7. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. cemented3.N/R4. Late

1. 122. 03. 0

#57MacDonald et al (2009)Prospective cohort

1. 202. 43.53. 30–60

1. N/R2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 202. Max3. Endopore, ‡§§4. Sintered porous surface (SPS)5. 9mm (8) - 12 mm (5)6. 3.5 mm - 4.1 mm7. BL8. 2

1. External2. Screw3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 482. 03. 0

#58Vigolo et al (2009)Prospective cohort

1. 1442. 373. 25–55

1. Y2. N/R3. N/R4. N/R

1. 1822. Max/ Mand3. Certain ††4. Dual acid etched (Osseotite)5. 11.5 mm (61) - 13 mm (68) - 15 mm (53)6. 5mm7. BL8. 2

1. External2. Screw/cemented3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 602. 03. 0



Ravidà et al

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1369x





Included Patients






Follow-up


#59Roccuzzo et al (2008)RCT

1. 322. N/R3. 26–59

1. N/R2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 1362. Max/Mand3. Straumann, Standard Plus SLA and TPS ‡4. Standard Plus: Sand blasted large grit and acid etched; TPS: Titanium plasma sprayed5. 8 mm (16) - 10 mm (80) - 12 mm (40)6. 4.1 mm - 4.8 mm7. STL8. 2

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Early/ Late

1. 602. 03. 0

#60Schincaglia et al (2008)RCT

1. 302. 50.533. 35–68

1. Y2. Y3. N/R4. N/R

1. 302. Mand3. Nobel Biocare, TiUnite ‡Ø4. Anodically oxidized rough surface.5. 8.5 mm (8) - 10 mm (9) - 11.5 mm (13)6. 5 mm7. BL8. 1

1. Internal2. Screw/Cemented3. Non-splinted4. Immediate or late

1. 162. 03. 1 (10 mm)

#61Achilli et al (2007)Prospective cohort

1. 512. 52.53. 31–80

1. Y2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 1202. Max/Mand3. Replace Select Tapered ‡Ø4. Anodically oxidized rough surface, TiUite.5. 10 mm (71) - 13 mm (47) - 16 mm (2)6. 3.5 mm - 4.3 mm - 5 mm - 6 mm7. BL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted4. Immediate/ early

1. 122. 03. 0

#62Vigolo et al (2006)RCT

1. 202. N/R3. N/R

1. N/R2. N/R3. N/R4. N/R

1. 402. Max/Mand3.Certain ††4. Dual acid etched (Osseotite)5. 13mm (24) - 15 mm (16)6. 3.75 mm - 4 mm7. BL8. 2

1. External2. Cemented3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 482. 03. 0

#63Salvi et al (2004)RCT

1. 272. 48.33. 29–72

1. Y2. Y3. N4. Y

1. 672. Mand3. Straumann, Standard ‡4. Sand- blasted, large and acid etched (SLA).5. 8 mm (3) - 10 mm (51) - 12 mm (13)6. 4.1 mm7. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Non-splinted4. Early

1. 122. 03. 0



Ravidà et al

1369y Volume 34, Number 6, 2019





Included Patients






Follow-up


#64Rocci et al (2003)RCT

1. 442. 513. 20–69

1. N/R2. Y3. N/R4. N/R

1. 1212. Mand3. Brånemark System® ‡Ø4. Anodically oxidized rough surface, TiUnite.5. 7mm (6) ; 8.5 mm (4) ; 10 mm (11) ; 11.5 mm (6); 15 mm (10) ; 18 mm (7)6. N/R7. BL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted4. Immediate

1. 122. 03. 1(10 mm) ; 2 (18 mm)

#65Roccuzzo et al (2002)

1. 192. N/R3. 35–65

1. N/R2. N3. N/R4. Y

1. 362. Max3. Straumann, Standard Plus ‡4. Sand- blasted, large and acid etched (SLA).5. 8 mm (9) - 10 mm (22) - 12 mm (5)6. 4.1 mm - 4.8 mm7. STL8. 1

1. Internal2. Cemented3. Splinted/Non-splinted4. Early

1. 122. 1 (10 mm)3. 0

#66Palmer et al (2000)Prospective cohort

1. 152. N/R3. 16–48

1. N/R2. N/R3. N/R4. N/R

1. 152. Max3. AstraTech †4. Titanium dioxide blasted (TiO blast)5. 13 mm (4) - 15 mm (11)6. 3.5 mm7. BL8. 2

1. Internal2. Screw/cemented3. Non-splinted4. Late

1. 602. 03. 0



impact of implant length on survival of rough-surface

Documents