Saudi Journal of Oral and Dental Research (SJODR)
Volume-11 | Issue-07 | 271-282
Review Article
Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) for Posterior Edentulism: A Comprehensive Review of Survival Rates and Complications
Malik Hina, Tausif Ahmed Shaikh, Ameena Abdussalam, Arabjot Kaur, Muhammed Umar Adnan, Ayesha Abbas Shaikh, Harita Pottam, Fouzia Firoz Pasha, Aarish Mansuri, Amima Aateka Mohd Shakil Qureshi
Published : July 11, 2026
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.