Short implants versus longer implants with maxillary sinus lift. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract This study compared the survival rate of dental implants, amount of marginal bone loss, and rates of complications (biological and prosthetic) between short implants and long implants placed after maxillary sinus augmentation. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number (CRD42017073929). Two reviewers searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials, comparisons between short implants and long implants placed after maxillary sinus augmentation in the same study, and follow-up for >6 months. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. The search identified 1366 references. After applying the inclusion criteria, 11 trials including 420 patients who received 911 dental implants were considered eligible. No significant difference was observed in the survival rate [p = 0.86; risk ratio (RR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-2.52] or in the amount of marginal bone loss (p = 0.08; RR: −0.05; 95%CI: −0.10 to 0.01). However, higher rates of biological complications for long implants associated with maxillary sinus augmentation were observed (p < 0.00001; RR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.10-0.41), whereas a higher prosthetic complication rate for short implants was noted (p = 0.010; RR: 3.15; 95%CI: 1.32-7.51). Short implant placement is an effective alternative because of fewer biological complications and similar survival and marginal bone loss than long implant placement with maxillary sinus augmentation. However, the risk of mechanical complications associated with the prostheses fitted on short implants should be considered.

Complications with PMMA compared with other materials used in cranioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) has been considered a suitable material for cranioplasty. However, no consensus has been reached concerning the best material for cranioplasty with regard to minimizing complications. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the complication rates of PMMA with those of autologous bone and titanium mesh. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016042725). Systematic searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. The focus question was, "Do PMMA prostheses used in cranioplasty have complications rates similar to those of autologous bone and titanium mesh?" A meta-analysis of complication rates was performed on the basis of dichotomous outcomes assessed by risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). From 1014 data sources, 11 articles were selected according to eligibility criteria. These articles involved 1,256 individuals and 1,278 cranioplasties using autologous bone (n = 408), PMMA (n = 379), or titanium (n = 151). The follow-up period ranged from 63 days to 54.3 months. No difference was observed between the complication rates of PMMA and autologous bone (p = 0.94; RR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.54-1.75) or between PMMA and titanium (p = 0.38; RR, 1.59; 95%CI, 0.57-4.48). Sub-analysis of the reasons for craniotomy (trauma/non-trauma) was conducted, which revealed no significant difference (p = 0.91; RR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.37-2.42). The meta-analysis indicated that the use of PMMA yields complication rates that are near those of autologous bone and titanium mesh.