The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The survival rate in this study is consistent with the results of the recently published systematic reviews. A systematic review by Lin et al, including one cohort study and 10 cross-sectional studies stated that regarding the survival rate at 1-year, healing period or 3-year loading, the differences between short implants (≤ 8 mm) and conventional implants (> 8 mm) both combined with transcrestal SFE were not significant (1 year: I 2 = 0%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% CI 0.55-1.96; healing period: I 2 = 10%, OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.28-1.97; 3-year loading: OR = 1.76, 95% CI 0.65-4.74, respectively) [24]. Another network meta-analysis by Al-Moraissi et al showed that no significant difference was found in the survival rate between the short (4-8.5 mm) and long implant group (> 8 mm) when using OSFE in the posterior maxilla with RBH 4-8 mm (OR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.06-18.99) [30], which indicated that the length of the implant did not influence the survival rate.…”

“…These studies indicate that short implants with OSFE can achieve favorable clinical outcomes, which is an effective method to avoid standard implants placed with OSFE or LSFE for severely atrophic posterior maxillae [22,23]. A systematic review stated that it was still unclear if short implants placed with OSFE have a lower or higher survival rate than standard implants combined with OSFE when the RBH was insufficient [24]. However, studies in this meta-analysis were observational studies, which cannot provide high-quality evidence compared with randomized controlled trials (RCTs).…”

Single-crown restorations in premolar–molar regions: short (≤ 6.5) vs longer implants: retrospective cohort study

“…Currently, short implants can be preferred to maintain as much pristine bone as possible, even when standard implants could be housed. [23,24] Some authors reported that short implants could have lower survival rates than standard implants [25,26] but recent systematic reviews have shown that short implants had a better or equal performance compared with standard [27][28][29] and did not seem to have a significant influence on marginal bone loss [30]. Several systematic reviews and meta-analysis have been conducted to clarify the controversies on the clinical performance of short implants [25,[31][32][33][34] but their results should be individually interpreted with caution to assess the eventual presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies [31] (as studies including both splinted and nonsplinted restorations, implants placed in both grafted or pristine bone, different implant designs and surfaces or different types of restorative design).…”