Alenezi Abdulwahab T, Alkandari Meshari, Alkandari Mohammed, Alkhashan Danah, Albakheet Fahad, Owayed Abdulaziz S, Jamaan Abdulrahman H, Mathoud Ahmad, Alsulaili Bader, Alrashidi Ahmad, Alsaleh Sayed A, Alajmi Yousef, Aldhafeeri Rashed, Alsaffar Abdullah, Alharbi Turki, Abdelaziz Ahmed
Department of Dentistry, Saad Al-Abdullah Block 2 Polyclinic, Al-Jahra, KWT.
Department of Dentistry, Rumaithiya Polyclinic, Kuwait City, KWT.
Cureus. 2025 Jul 31;17(7):e89103. doi: 10.7759/cureus.89103. eCollection 2025 Jul.
Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) has become the standard technique, aiming to increase vertical bone volume to accommodate standard-length implants, typically 10 mm or longer, with a predictable treatment modality. Data have sparked interest in short implants for patients with atrophic jaws. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical results of short implants compared to long implants with sinus floor elevation. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from inception to June 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short implants with long implants and sinus floor elevation in patients with atrophic posterior maxillae. The primary outcome was the mean change in marginal bone loss. Secondary outcomes included rates of implant survival, biological complications, and prosthetic complications. A random-effects model was adopted to pool mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). STATA MP version 18 was used for all statistical analyses. Seven RCTs comprising 393 patients and 474 implants were included. Short implants resulted in a significant reduction in marginal bone loss (MD = -0.26 mm, 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.09, < 0.001; I² = 56.29, = 0.04) and lower rates of biological complications (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.85, = 0.02; I² = 0.00, = 0.92) compared to long implants with sinus floor elevation. Moreover, there was no significant difference between short implants or long implants with sinus floor elevation in terms of survival rates of implants used (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.25, p = 0.76; I2= 0.00, p = 1) or prosthetic complications (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 0.82 to 5.82, p = 0.12; I2= 25.62, p = 0.44). In conclusion, short implants (<8 mm) may offer an alternative to standard grafting implants. However, further long-term RCTs are needed to draw clear conclusions on survival rates.
上颌窦底提升术（MSFA）已成为标准技术，旨在增加垂直骨量，以容纳标准长度的种植体，通常为10毫米或更长，且治疗方式具有可预测性。有数据引发了人们对萎缩性颌骨患者使用短种植体的兴趣。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估短种植体与行上颌窦底提升术的长种植体相比的临床效果。从数据库建立至2025年6月，对PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆进行了系统检索，以确定比较萎缩性上颌后牙区患者短种植体与长种植体及上颌窦底提升术的随机对照试验（RCT）。主要结局是边缘骨丢失的平均变化。次要结局包括种植体存留率、生物学并发症发生率和修复并发症发生率。采用随机效应模型汇总平均差（MD）和比值比（OR），并给出95%置信区间（CI）。所有统计分析均使用STATA MP 18版。纳入了7项RCT，共393例患者和474颗种植体。与行上颌窦底提升术的长种植体相比，短种植体导致边缘骨丢失显著减少（MD = -0.26 mm，95% CI：-0.43至-0.09，P < 0.001；I² = 56.29，P = 0.04），生物学并发症发生率更低（OR：0.39，95% CI：0.18至0.85，P = 0.02；I² = 0.00，P = 0.92）。此外，在使用的种植体存留率（OR：0.96，95% CI：0.74至1.25，P = 0.76；I² = 0.00，P = 1）或修复并发症方面（OR：2.18，95% CI：0.82至5.82，P = 0.12；I² = 25.62，P = 0.44），短种植体与行上颌窦底提升术的长种植体之间无显著差异。总之，短种植体（<8毫米）可能是标准植骨种植体的一种替代选择。然而，需要进一步的长期RCT来就存留率得出明确结论。
