When surgical preparation is related to bone density, textured-surfaced implants are employed, operators' surgical skills are developed, and indications for implant treatment duly considered, the survival rates for short and for wide-diameter implants has been found to be comparable with those obtained with longer implants and those of a standard diameter. The use of a short or wide implant may be considered in sites thought unfavourable for implant success, such as those associated with bone resorption or previous injury and trauma. While in these situations implant failure rates may be increased, outcomes should be compared with those associated with advanced surgical procedure such as bone grafting, sinus lifting, and the transposition of the alveolar nerve.

This study demonstrates that the use of short implants may be considered for prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla as an alternative to more complicated surgical techniques.

Rehabilitation of severely resorbed jaws with dental implants remains a surgical and prosthetic challenge for clinicians. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the available data on short-length implants and discuss their indications and limitations in daily clinical practice. A structured review of MEDLINE and a manual search were conducted. Thirty-two case series devoted to short-length implants, 14 reviews and 3 randomized controlled trials were identified. Of this group of papers, we can conclude that short-length implants can be successfully used to support single and multiple fixed reconstructions in posterior atrophied jaws, even in those with increased crown-to-implant ratios. The use of short-length implants allows treatment of patients who are unable to undergo complex surgical techniques for medical, anatomic or financial reasons. Moreover, the use of short-length implants in daily clinical practice reduces the need for complex surgeries, thus reducing morbidity, cost and treatment time. The use of short implants promotes the new concept of stress-minimizing surgery, allowing the surgeon to focus more on the correct three-dimensional positioning of the implant.

This evidence should, however, be interpreted with caution as it is derived from four RCT's with limited sample size (ranging from 15 to 30 per group), limited follow-up and performed by the same research group.