Short implants versus longer implants in the posterior alveolar region after an observation period of at least five years: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract Objectives This meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes, including survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), and technical and biological complications of short implants ( Sources Electronic (via PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 29, 2019. Study selection The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140718). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short implants and standard implants in the same study after an observation period of at least five years were included. Data Nine RCTs were included in this study. The survival rates of short implants ( Conclusions The results indicate that although the survival rate of short implants in the maxilla may be lower than that of long implants, the survival rate of short implants in the mandible is similar to that of long implants, and short implants can result in a lower rate of biological complications. The conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to the limited numbers of participants and implants. Clinical Significance When selecting the length of implants, surgeons should consider survival rate, the location of implant placement, their own clinical experience, and the incidence of complications.