Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42927204
Short Implants Versus Sinus Floor Elevation With Standard Implants in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Abdallaoui Maane Salma, Muelas Sanchez Cesar, Lanciego Manuel, et al. · Cureus · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.7759/cureus.116807
Findings
11 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adults with atrophic posterior maxilla | Short implants ≤6 mm without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants >8 mm with sinus floor elevation | Biological complications | no estimate extracted Low Studies not reported |
| Adults with posterior maxillary atrophy (subantral bone height <10 mm) | Short implants (<=6 mm) placed without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants (>8 mm) placed with sinus floor elevation (lateral or transcrestal) | Implant survival (patient level) Latest follow-up per cohort (36 to 120 months) · Sensitivity analysis: event-free cohort reintroduced with 0.5 continuity correction, Hartung-Knapp adjustment | RR 0.99 [0.87, 1.12] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 174 participants |
| Adults with posterior maxillary atrophy (subantral bone height <10 mm) | Short implants (<=6 mm) placed without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants (>8 mm) placed with sinus floor elevation (lateral or transcrestal) | Implant survival (patient level) Latest follow-up per cohort (36 to 120 months) · Sensitivity analysis: Paule-Mandel between-study variance estimator | RR 1.00 [0.56, 1.76] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 154 participants |
| Adults with atrophic posterior maxilla | Short implants ≤6 mm without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants >8 mm with sinus floor elevation | Prosthetic and technical complications | no estimate extracted Very low Studies not reported |
| Adults with posterior maxillary atrophy (subantral bone height <10 mm) | Short implants (<=6 mm) placed without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants (>8 mm) placed with sinus floor elevation (lateral or transcrestal) | Implant failure (patient level) Latest follow-up per cohort (36 to 120 months) · Failure scale: Peto odds ratio | Peto OR 1.70 [0.17, 16.86] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 174 participants |
| Adults with atrophic posterior maxilla | Short implants ≤6 mm without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants >8 mm with sinus floor elevation | Marginal bone loss 12 to 120 months | no estimate extracted Very low 3 studies |
| Adults with posterior maxillary atrophy (subantral bone height <10 mm) | Short implants (<=6 mm) placed without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants (>8 mm) placed with sinus floor elevation (lateral or transcrestal) | Implant survival (patient level) Latest follow-up per cohort (36 to 120 months) · Sensitivity analysis: fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model | RR 0.99 [0.94, 1.04] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Adults with posterior maxillary atrophy (subantral bone height <10 mm) | Short implants (<=6 mm) placed without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants (>8 mm) placed with sinus floor elevation (lateral or transcrestal) | Implant survival (patient level) Latest follow-up per cohort (36 to 120 months) · Primary analysis: random effects, DerSimonian-Laird with Hartung-Knapp adjustment | RR 1.00 [0.56, 1.76] Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency 2 studies · 154 participants |
| Adults with posterior maxillary atrophy (subantral bone height <10 mm) | Short implants (<=6 mm) placed without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants (>8 mm) placed with sinus floor elevation (lateral or transcrestal) | Implant survival (patient level) Latest follow-up per cohort (36 to 120 months) · Sensitivity analysis: event-free cohort reintroduced with 0.5 continuity correction, unadjusted DerSimonian-Laird | RR 0.99 [0.93, 1.05] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 174 participants |
| Adults with posterior maxillary atrophy (subantral bone height <10 mm) | Short implants (<=6 mm) placed without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants (>8 mm) placed with sinus floor elevation (lateral or transcrestal) | Implant survival (implant level) Latest follow-up per cohort (36 to 120 months) · Sensitivity analysis: implant-level unit of analysis | RR 1.00 [0.93, 1.08] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Adults with posterior maxillary atrophy (subantral bone height <10 mm) | Short implants (<=6 mm) placed without sinus floor elevation | Standard implants (>8 mm) placed with sinus floor elevation (lateral or transcrestal) | Implant survival (patient level) Latest follow-up per cohort (36 to 120 months) · Sensitivity analysis: unadjusted DerSimonian-Laird interval | RR 1.00 [0.91, 1.09] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 154 participants |
Included primary studies 4
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thoma 2024 Randomized controlled multi-centre study comparing shorter dental implants (6 mm) to longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with… PMID:38296249 | 2024 | 1 other review | Implant survival (patient level) | not extracted yet |
| Bechara 2017 Short (6-mm) dental implants versus sinus floor elevation and placement of longer (≥10-mm) dental implants: a randomized controlled trial… PMID:27402427 | 2017 | this review only | Implant survival (patient level) | not extracted yet |
| Felice 2015 Short implants as an alternative to crestal sinus lift: A 1-year multicentre randomised controlled trial. PMID:26669547 | 2015 | this review only | Implant survival (patient level) | not extracted yet |
| Pohl 2017 Short dental implants (6 mm) versus long dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 3-year results… PMID:28081288 | 2017 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Ten-year outcomes of short dental implants (≤ 6 mm): a systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. (2026) | 1 | 0.09 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Adults aged >=18 years with posterior maxillary atrophy (subantral bone height <10 mm) | Patients with atrophic posterior maxilla, residual subantral bone height 5 to 7 mm (n=174 randomized patients, 3 cohorts) |
| Intervention | Short implants (<=6 mm) placed without sinus floor elevation | Short implants 5 to 6 mm without sinus floor elevation (n=93) |
| Comparison | Standard implants (>8 mm) placed with sinus floor elevation (lateral or transcrestal approach) | Standard implants 10 to 15 mm with sinus floor elevation (n=81) |
| Outcomes | Implant survival (primary); marginal bone loss; biological and prosthetic complications | Implant survival (pooled, 2 cohorts, n=154; Peto OR on failure scale, 3 cohorts); marginal bone loss and complications narrative only |
| Study designs | Randomized controlled trials published 2014-2025 | RCTs (n=3 cohorts, 4 publications) |
| Timing | Minimum follow-up 12 months | 12 months (1 cohort), 36 months (1 cohort), 120 months (1 cohort) |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | Yes | No | no |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Yes | no |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | yes |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | yes |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | Yes | no |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |