Cureus. 2026 Jul 8;18(7):e112307. doi: 10.7759/cureus.112307. eCollection 2026 Jul.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Short dental implants have been proposed as a minimally invasive alternative to standard implants for rehabilitation of posterior edentulous regions with limited bone availability. However, concerns remain regarding their long-term survival and risk of failure compared to standard-length implants. This study aimed to compare the survival and failure rates of short (<10 mm) and standard (≥10 mm) dental implants placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 207 patients who received 363 dental implants in the posterior jaw. The implants were categorized as short implants (<10 mm; n = 141) and standard implants (≥10 mm; n = 222). Demographic characteristics, implant-related variables, and clinical outcomes were retrieved from the patient records. Implant failure, survival rates, and the influence of jaw location on implant outcomes were assessed. Statistical analyses included chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, independent-samples t-tests, and odds ratio calculations. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 52.1 ± 10.5 years, with 142 (68.6%) males and 65 (31.4%) females. Overall, implant failure was significantly higher among short implants than among standard implants (p < 0.001). Standard implants demonstrated significantly lower odds of failure than short implants (OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.15-0.57). In the maxilla, the failure rates were 18 (28.6%) for short implants and 8 (8.5%) for standard implants (p = 0.002), whereas in the mandible, the corresponding rates were 10 (12.8%) and 7 (5.5%), respectively (p = 0.110). The cumulative survival rates were lower for short implants as compared to standard implants.
CONCLUSION: Standard dental implants demonstrated significantly higher survival rates and lower failure rates than short implants in posterior jaw rehabilitation. Although short implants remain a useful treatment option in anatomically restricted sites, careful case selection is necessary, particularly in the posterior maxilla, where the risk of failure appears to be greater.
PMID:42571603 | PMC:PMC13452643 | DOI:10.7759/cureus.112307
