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.

The aim of this study was to evaluate different materials for restoration of teeth without ferrule by three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA). Five models simulating the maxillary central incisor and surrounding bone were simulated according to the type of post: glass fibre post (GFP) or cast metal post (CMP) with different alloys such as gold (Au), silver–palladium (AgPd), copper–aluminum (CuAl) and nickel–chromium (NiCr). Models were designed using Invesalius and Rhinoceros. FEAs were made using FEMAP and NeiNastran, with an applied axial force of 100 N and oblique occlusal load at 45°. Stress distribution among groups was analysed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by post-hoc Tukey’s test. The GFP showed the best stress distribution in the post, followed by CMP with Au, AgPd, CuAl and NiCr alloys, respectively (p < .001). No statistically significant difference in the stress distribution in teeth was found under application of axial load (p > .05). Under oblique load, the GFP generated the highest values of tension among the models, followed by the CMP with NiCr alloy than other models (p < .001). The use of GFP resulted in a lower stress concentration in the post, but increased stress in the tooth without ferrule. The CMP with NiCr alloy exhibited the highest stress distribution among other CMP. To avoid higher stress in teeth, alloys of Au, AgPd and CuAl, respectively, are recommended.

The aim of this study was to compare the values of bone-implant contact (BIC) and removal torque (RTQ) reported in different animal studies for titanium–zirconium (TiZr) and titanium (Ti) dental implants. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under number CRD42016047745. We undertook an electronic search for data published up until November 2017 using the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria included in vivo studies, comparisons between Ti and TiZr implants in the same study, and studies published in English that evaluated BIC and RTQ. After inclusion criteria, 8 studies were assessed for eligibility. Of the 8 studies, 7 analyzed BIC outcome and 3 analyzed RTQ outcome. Among such studies, 6 studies were considered for meta-analysis of quantitative for BIC and 2 studies for RTQ. There was no significant difference for BIC analysis (P = .89; random ration [RR]: −0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.14 to 2.72). The heterogeneity of the primary outcome studies was considered low (7.19; P = .21; I²: 30%). However, the RTQ analysis showed different results favoring the TiZr dental implants (P = .001; RR: 23.62; 95%CI: 9.15 to 38.10). Low heterogeneity was observed for RTQ (χ²: 1.25; P = .26; I²: 20%). Within the limitations of this study, there was no difference between TiZr and Ti alloys implants in terms of BIC. However, TiZr implants had higher RTQ than Ti alloys.