Abstract:BackgroundThe rehabilitation of fully edentulous atrophic maxillae can be challenging. The missing dentition can be replaced by dentures, which may not always be appreciated by patients for their instability, discomfort and negative psychological impact. The ideal solution would be an implant‐supported prosthesis, however the lack of adequate bone volumes to place at least four dental implants of sufficient length due to advanced bone resorption could be a problem.Aim/HypothesisTo evaluate whether short (5–8.5 mm) dental implants could be a suitable alternative to longer (at least 11.5 mm‐long) implants placed in atrophic fully edentulous maxillae augmented with autogenous bone for supporting dental prostheses.Material and MethodsTwenty‐eight patients with fully edentulous atrophic maxillae having 5–9 mm of residual crestal bone height at least 5 mm thick, as measured on CT scans, were randomised into two groups either to receive four to eight short (5–8.5 mm) implants (15 patients) or autogenous bone from the iliac crest to allow the placement of at least 11.5 mm‐long implants (13 patients). Both bone blocks and windows at lifted maxillary sinuses were covered with rigid resorbable barriers. Grafts were left to heal for 4 months before placing implants, which were submerged. After 4 months, provisional reinforced acrylic prostheses or bar retained overdentures were delivered. Provisional prostheses were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive screw‐retained metal‐resin cross‐arch restorations. Outcome measures were‐ augmentation, prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, peri‐implant marginal bone level changes and patient satisfaction. Patients were followed up to 5 years after loading.ResultsAll patients could be rehabilitated with implant‐supported prostheses but four patients dropped‐out from the augmented group and three from the short implant group. One bilateral sinus lift procedure failed for infection, though short implants could be placed. Four implants failed in four patients of the augmented group versus three short implants in three patients (Fishers exact test, P = 0.6500). All failures occurred before loading. No prosthesis failed. Significantly more complications occurred in augmented patients‐ 12 complications occurred in nine augmented patients versus one complication in the short implant group (Fishers exact test, P = 0.0003). Periapical radiographs of only four patients were available, so no bone level could be measured at 5 years after loading. With the only exception of three patients of the augmented group who were partially satisfied for function, all remaining patients were fully satisfied and all would do the treatment again. Conclusion and Clinical ImplicationsThis study showed that for patients with fully edentulous atrophic maxillae short implants can be a preferable alternative to longer implants placed in bone augmented with autogenous bone, being the treatment less invasive, associated with less complications, cheaper and faster.

Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10‐mm dental implants in different clinical scenarios: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta‐analysis, trial sequential analysis and quality of evidence grading

Short versus Longer Implants in Sites without the Need for Bone Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Retrospective Study of Short Versus Standard Posterior Implants and Analysis of Implant Failure Risk Factors

Clinical Evaluation of Short and Wide-Diameter Implants Immediately Placed into Extraction Sockets of Posterior Areas: A 2-Year Retrospective Study

Short Implants (5 to 8 Mm) Versus Longer Implants (>8 Mm) with Sinus Lifting in Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Meta‐Analysis of RCTs

Randomized controlled multi‐centre study comparing shorter dental implants (6 mm) to longer dental implants (11–15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 10‐year data

Short Implants (5 to 8 mm) Versus Longer Implants (>8 mm) with Sinus Lifting in Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs

Short Implants (5‐8 mm) Versus Long Implants (≥10 mm) with Augmentation in Atrophic Posterior Jaws: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Outcomes That May Affect Implant and Prosthesis Survival and Complications in Maxillary Fixed Prosthesis Supported by Four or Six Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Are short implants (≤8.5 mm) reliable in the rehabilitation of completely edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Evaluation of Short 6-Mm Implants Alone, Short 8-Mm Implants Combined with Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation and Standard 10-Mm Implants Combined with Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation in Posterior Maxillae: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Survival of surface-modified short versus long implants in complete or partially edentulous patients with a follow-up of 1 year or more: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Predictability of short implants ( < 10 mm) as a treatment option for the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae. A systematic review

Short (6 mm) and Regular Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla–7-Years Follow-up Study

Outcome Difference between Short and Longer Dental Implants Placed Simultaneously with Alveolar Bone Augmentation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Short Versus Longer Implants with Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation for Moderately Atrophic Posterior Maxillae: A 1-Year Randomized Clinical Trial.

Short implants versus bone augmentation in atrophic maxillae: Five‐year post‐loading results from a RCT

Ten-Year Performance of Posterior 6-mm Implants with Single-Tooth Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Clinical Outcomes of Bone‐Level and Tissue‐Level Short Implants Placed in Posterior Maxilla: A Case–Control Study

Clinical, Radiographic And Economic Evaluation Of Short-6-Mm Implants And Longer Implants Combined With Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation In Moderately Atrophic Maxillae: A 3-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

Clinical Performance of Extra-Short (≤5.5 mm) Compared to Longer Implants Splinted under the Same Prosthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial