BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges that dentists face today is to rehabilitate severe atrophied alveolar ridges in partially and completely edentulous patients with implants. Despite the high survival rate of implants placed next to sinus elevation, this technique presents complications that can be avoided by placing short implants, an option that also presents high survival rates. For this reason, the aim of this study is to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss and complications associated with short implants (<8 mm) versus longer implants (≥8mm) placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in posterior atrophic maxillae. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted by two independent reviewers in the PubMed/Medline (National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC) electronic database for articles published from January 2007 to July 2018. Seven qualified articles were selected for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The test for overall effect did not find statistical significance in the survival rates, overall complications, intra-operative complications, post-operative complications and prosthetic complications. However, the test showed statistically significant differences in biological complications in favor of standard implants, and marginal bone loss between control and test groups in favor of short implants (<8mm) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study, prosthetic rehabilitations with short implants (<8mm) in posterior maxilla is a reliable treatment option as an alternative to lateral wall sinus floor augmentation.
BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges that dentists face today is to rehabilitate severe atrophied alveolar ridges in partially and completely edentulouspatients with implants. Despite the high survival rate of implants placed next to sinus elevation, this technique presents complications that can be avoided by placing short implants, an option that also presents high survival rates. For this reason, the aim of this study is to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss and complications associated with short implants (<8 mm) versus longer implants (≥8mm) placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in posterior atrophic maxillae. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted by two independent reviewers in the PubMed/Medline (National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC) electronic database for articles published from January 2007 to July 2018. Seven qualified articles were selected for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The test for overall effect did not find statistical significance in the survival rates, overall complications, intra-operative complications, post-operative complications and prosthetic complications. However, the test showed statistically significant differences in biological complications in favor of standard implants, and marginal bone loss between control and test groups in favor of short implants (<8mm) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study, prosthetic rehabilitations with short implants (<8mm) in posterior maxilla is a reliable treatment option as an alternative to lateral wall sinus floor augmentation.