The choice of treatment for implant rehabilitation for maxillary atrophy is crucial. It involves either between the use of short implants or performing sinus lift and the establishment of standard implants: what would be the best choice in term of survival rate and complications? We conducted a systematic review to try to answer this question.

An electronic and manual search of clinical studies (between 2007 and 2017) comparing short implants to standard implants associated with sinus lift was performed. All the articles are read and analyzed then selected according to previously defined inclusion criteria. Eighteen articles were selected from the 358 articles: 15 randomized controlled trials, 1 cohort study and 2 systematic reviews.

The studies were divided according to their follow-up periods: short (< 1 year), medium (1 year) and long (> 1 year). The results of the study showed a survival rate for short implants ranging from 91.8% to 100%, and from 87.8% to 100% for standard implants associated with sinus lift. Biological complications predominate with the perforation of Schneider's membrane, which is by far the most common complication. The results of the meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in the survival rate of the two procedures over the short, medium and long term. However but the study of complications shows that in the short and medium term, the results are in favor of short implants.

Compared to standard implants associated with sinus lift, short implants have the advantage of being a solution with a high survival rate, it is less expensive, requiring less surgical time, presenting fewer complications compared to advanced surgery of sinus lift and thus obtaining more patient satisfaction.

Short implants are a reliable alternative compared to standard implants associated with sinus lift. They present an alternative with the same survival rate and fewer complications.