Jul 2026· Saudi Journal of Oral and Dental Research· 0 citations
TL;DR
Short dental implants represent a valid, minimally invasive alternative to bone augmentation in appropriately selected patients and depend on modern nano-structured implant surfaces, adequate prosthetic splinting, bone quality assessment, and rigorous peri-implant maintenance.
Abstract
Background: Short dental implants (≤6 mm) are increasingly used for posterior rehabilitation in patients with limited alveolar bone height. This review examines their survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), peri-implantitis, and technical/prosthetic complications compared with standard-length implants. Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Search terms included 'short dental implants', 'posterior edentulism', 'survival rates', 'marginal bone loss', 'peri-implantitis', and 'bone augmentation'. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and prospective and retrospective clinical studies published between 2018 and 2024 were included. Studies were selected based on implant intrabony length of ≤6 mm, a minimum follow-up of 12 months, and reporting of at least one primary outcome. Results: Evidence from a meta-analysis of 16 RCTs (408 short implants; 475 standard-length implants) demonstrates statistically higher survival rates for longer implants (99.4% vs. 95.1%; 95% CI: 2–5%, p < 0.001), though no significant difference was found in early or late implant failure rates. MBL was marginally but non-significantly lower for short implants (0.23 mm vs. 0.27 mm). Peri-implantitis prevalence (0–6% vs. 0–13%) and technical/prosthetic complication rates were comparable between groups. Crown-to-implant ratios of 1.55–1.86 in short implants did not translate to elevated complication rates when prostheses were splinted. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 RCTs confirmed equivalent survival at all follow-up intervals without the need for bone augmentation. Conclusions: Short dental implants represent a valid, minimally invasive alternative to bone augmentation in appropriately selected patients. Optimal outcomes depend on modern nano-structured implant surfaces, adequate prosthetic splinting, bone quality assessment, and rigorous peri-implant maintenance. Further long-term RCTs with standardized peri-implantitis criteria are needed.
PURPOSE
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of dental implants with a triangular neck, focusing on 1-year marginal bone loss (MBL) and implant survival rate.
METHODS
This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search of databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was completed on June 8, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective and prospective studies, and case series that studied ≥ 10 implants, reporting on triangular-neck implants, were included. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was used for RCTs, and the Joanna Briggs Institute case series checklist was used for nonrandomized studies. The results were summarized using a random-effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed to assess robustness. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to determine the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
The search provided 115 titles after removal of duplicates. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, five of which provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis. The pooled analysis demonstrated a 1-year mean MBL of 0.35 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.46; heterogeneity; I2 = 23.2%; p = 0.25) and an implant survival rate of 97.8% (95% CI: 95.4%-99.4%; I2 = 0.0%; p = 0.96).
CONCLUSIONS
Available single-arm evidence indicates that triangular-neck implants were associated with high implant survival rates and limited marginal bone level changes during the first year of follow-up. However, the current evidence does not permit conclusions regarding comparative clinical benefits relative to other implant designs.
Ziqi Xie, Sara Reda Sammour, Ryuji Shigemitsu et al.· International Journal of Imp...· 0 citations
While DO provides the greatest vertical bone gain, the GBR techniques might be a more clinically practical option, however, future well-planned RCTs to identify effective vertical bone augmentation techniques are still warranted.
BACKGROUND
Rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla presents a significant clinical challenge. While standard implants combined with sinus floor elevation (SFE) represent a highly predictable treatment modality, they are often associated with increased surgical morbidity, longer treatment times, and higher costs. Consequently, short implants (≤ 8 mm) have emerged as a promising, minimally invasive alternative.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard implants with SFE in the severely atrophic posterior maxilla.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in strict accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search yielded 517 records, from which eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. The primary outcomes evaluated were implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL). Statistical analyses were conducted utilizing a random-effects model, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.
RESULTS
A total of 8 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed no statistically significant difference in overall implant failure rates between the short implant group and the standard implant with SFE group (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.75, P=0.83),with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Furthermore, short implants exhibited significantlyless marginal bone loss (MD = -0.15 mm, 95% CI: -0.26 to -0.04, P = 0.008), withan I2= 0%.
CONCLUSIONS
Short implants (≤ 8 mm) serve as a predictable and reliable alternative to standard implants with SFE in the atrophic posterior maxilla. They achieve comparable implant survival rates while offering the distinct clinical advantage of significantly reduced marginal bone loss, supporting their use as a primary minimally invasive treatment option.
Chao Wang, Ce Xin, Naixuan Zhang et al.· Journal of Stomatology Oral...· 0 citations
Background/Objectives: Vestibular socket therapy (VST) is a minimally invasive technique for immediate implant placement (IIP) in compromised extraction sockets that reconstructs the deficient buccal plate while preserving the crestal soft tissue. Despite growing clinical adoption, the randomized evidence on its predictability and biological performance remains limited. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261288724), PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to January 2026 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating VST with IIP. Risk of bias (RoB 2) and certainty of evidence (GRADE) were assessed. Final follow-up buccal bone plate thickness was pooled using a random-effects model; trials comparing variations within VST were reported narratively but not pooled. Results: Seven RCTs (186 participants) were included; implant survival was 99.5%, with no shield exposure, peri-implantitis, or dehiscence. Meta-analysis of the three trials comparing VST against a distinct alternative technique showed no significant between-group difference in final buccal bone plate thickness at any level: crestal +0.24 mm (95% CI−0.13 to 0.61; I2 = 45%), mid-root +0.32 mm (−0.45 to 1.09; I2 = 82%), or apical +0.19 mm (−0.48 to 0.87; I2 = 67%). VST showed minimal mid-facial recession, stable papillae, and Pink Esthetic Scores of 10.29–13.17. Certainty was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: VST achieved high implant survival and favorable soft tissue and esthetic outcomes but did not significantly outperform comparator techniques in buccal bone plate thickness, with very low certainty. Adequately powered, independent trials with longer follow-up are needed.
Y. Soliman, Nadine Gräfin von Krockow, F. E. Hassanein et al.· Dental journal· 0 citations
Mandibular IODs do not appear to substantially increase maxillary RRR compared with conventional dentures, and attachment design and occlusal loading may have greater influence on maxillary RRR patterns than implant number or distribution, although the certainty of evidence is low to moderate.
A. Alqutaibi, Radwan Algabri, Basim Mohammad Abu Zaid et al.· Journal of Prosthodontics· 0 citations
The primary role of buccal-shelf miniscrew implants (BS-MSI) in orthodontic treatment is to provide extra-alveolar anchorage that alleviates severe crowding and allows for distalization of the entire mandibular arch and may obviate the need for orthognathic surgery, particularly in patients with skeletal malocclusion. The stability of these screws is crucial to their successful function throughout orthodontic treatment. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to assess the success rate and various factors affecting the stability of BS-MSI. The databases were searched electronically using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases on 7th February 2025 and re-searched on 22nd February 2026. The reference list and additional bibliographic databases, including clinical trial registries and Google Scholar, were also searched. This review includes clinical trials published in English, comprising prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials (NRCTs), and retrospective cohort studies (RCs) that described the success rate of BS-MSI for orthodontic anchorage in human subjects. Success rates and associated risk factors for BS-MSI were determined utilising a random-effects model. The determinants influencing stability were categorised into patient, mechanics, and implant-related aspects, and subsequently underwent subgroup analysis and meta-regression. The evaluation of study quality was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomised trials (RoB 2.0) and non-randomised trials (ROBINS-I). This meta-analysis included nine studies: three RCTs, two NRCTs, and four RCs. A total of 2366 BS-MSI were aggregated in a random-effects model, revealing an overall success rate of 93% (95% CI 0.81-1.00; prediction interval = 0.39-1). In a sensitivity analysis, experiments using more than 100 screws exhibited a 91% success rate, comparable to those with fewer than 100 screws. A meta-regression study indicated an inverse relationship between age and success rate. A considerable heterogeneity was observed across all subgroups. Three assessments indicated a low-, two indicated a moderate-, and four indicated a high-risk of bias. BS-MSI demonstrated a high success rate and therefore can provide a reliable source of orthodontic anchorage. However, given the low certainty and high heterogeneity in the existing evidence, the results should be interpreted with caution. Although numerous factors appear to influence BS-MSI stability, most require further investigation due to inadequate data and data quality. Furthermore, future studies are necessary to corroborate the findings of this meta-analysis and investigate other critical factors, such as location, dental cleanliness, gender, insertion torque, and operator experience, which could not be evaluated due to insufficient data. Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD420250653597.
Navleen Kaur Bhatia, U. Barhate, Ritu Duggal et al.· Orthodontics & craniofacial...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
