Abstract:Introduction Short implants are today a reliable, minimally invasive option for the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla. However, maintaining marginal bone stability remains a crucial factor for long‐term success, particularly in the case of short implants. The present multicenter prospective case–control study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of bone‐level and tissue‐level short implants in the posterior maxilla, focusing on implant survival and peri‐implant marginal bone stability over 1 year of function. Methods Fifty‐nine patients who met specific inclusion criteria were enrolled and treated by three clinical centers with a total of 74 short implants, either bone‐level (7 mm in length, placed 1 mm sub‐crestally) or tissue‐level (5 or 6.5 mm in length). The primary outcome was physiological bone remodeling (PBR) measured via radiographs at baseline (T0), prosthesis delivery (T1), and 12 months post‐loading (T2). Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate differences in PBR between groups, with multivariate analysis assessing the influence of various patient and site‐specific factors. Results The final analysis included 58 patients who were treated with a total of 71 short implants, comprising 36 tissue‐level and 35 bone‐level implants (one patient dropped out as he did not attend follow‐up visits on time). All implants were rehabilitated with fixed, screwed prosthetics after 5 months, with no recorded complications up to 1 year of loading. Stability was similar between the two implant types at T0 and T1, with no significant differences in insertion torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Multivariate analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between insertion torque and ISQ at T0, as well as with bicortical engagement of the implant apex with the sinus floor. Tissue‐level implants demonstrated significantly lower peri‐implant bone remodeling (PBR) compared to bone‐level implants at both T1 (0.11 ± 0.27 mm vs. 0.34 ± 0.35 mm, p = 0.004) and T2 (0.30 ± 0.23 mm vs. 0.55 ± 0.42 mm, p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis showed a significant positive correlation between PBR (T0–T1) and thin vertical mucosal thickness (≤ 2 mm) at T0 in both tissue‐level and bone‐level implants. Additionally, PBR (T1–T2) in both groups significantly correlated with the use of short prosthetic abutments (≤ 2 mm) and, only in bone‐level implants, with crown emergence angles > 30°. Conclusion Both tissue‐level and bone‐level short implants are effective options for implant‐supported rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla. Tissue‐level short implants offer superior marginal bone stability compared to bone‐level implants placed subcrestally, suggesting their favorable use in clinical practice.

Assessment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues Conditions around Short and Ultra-Short Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A 3-Year Retrospective Study on Periodontally Healthy Patients and Patients with a History of Periodontal Disease

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

Short and ultra‐short (<6‐mm) locking‐taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior areas (part II): A 5‐year retrospective study on periodontally healthy patients and patients with a history of periodontitis

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

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Short Locking-Taper Implants Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Region: A 12-Year Retrospective Study.

Peri-Implant Conditions And Marginal Bone Loss Around Cemented And Screw-Retained Single Implant Crowns In Posterior Regions: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Up To 4 Years Follow-Up

Long-term outcomes of short dental implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: a clinical retrospective study of 5-10 years.

A Prospective, Multicentre Study of 6-Mm Short Implants in Posterior Alveolar Bone Supporting Splinted Crowns: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study.

Implant survival rate and marginal bone loss of 174 implants with different variables associated over a minimum observational period of 20 years: A retrospective study

Survival and Complication Rates of Short Implants‐supported Single Crowns in the Posterior Regions with High Crown‐implant Ration (C I)‐ A 10‐year Retrospective Study

Influence of crown-to-implant ratio and different prosthetic designs on the clinical conditions of short implants in posterior regions: A 4-year retrospective clinical and radiographic study.

Single crown restorations supported by 6‐mm implants in the resorbed posterior mandible: A 10‐year prospective case series

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

Evaluation of Implant Placement Following Ridge Preservation in Periodontally Compromised Molar Extraction Sockets: Three-year Results of a Prospective Cohort Study.

Four‐mm‐short implants in the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws: A retrospective study on 212 patients with a mean follow‐up of 8.02 years

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

Long-term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: A retrospective study with at least 8-year follow-up.

[A Prospective Cohort Study on the Effect of Implant Restoration Following Micro Crestal Flap-Alveolar Ridge Preservation at Molar Extraction Sockets with Severe Periodontitis].

Clinical outcomes of dental implants in patients with and without history of periodontitis: A 20-year prospective study

Implants placed in an alveolar ridge with a sloped configuration. A 3-year prospective multicenter study

Esthetic outcome and alterations of soft tissue around single implant crowns: a 2-year prospective study.