ORIGINAL ARTICLE Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: Three-year results of a randomized clinical study Silvio Taschieri MD DDS 1,2 | Alessandra Lolato MSc PhD 2 | Tiziano Testori MD DDS 2 | Luca Francetti MD DDS 1,2 | Massimo Del Fabbro MSc PhD 1,2 1 Department of Biomedical, Surgical, and Dental Sciences, Universit a degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy 2 Dental Clinic, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Milan, Italy Correspondence Massimo Del Fabbro, Department of Biomedical, Surgical, and Dental Sciences, Universit a degli Studi di Milano, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161 Milano, Italy. Email: massimo.delfabbro@unimi.it Abstract Background: Several treatment options exist for the implant-supported rehabilitation of edentu- lous posterior maxilla. Purpose: To compare maxillary sinus floor augmentation associated to standard length implants, with direct placement of implants of reduced length in the available residual bone. Materials and Methods: Patients with edentulous posterior maxilla and a residual height of 4-7 mm were randomly allocated to the test (short implants [SIs], 6.5 to 8.5mm long) or the control (sinus augmentation [SA] and implants 10mm long) group. Anorganic bovine bone was the graft- ing material for the control group. In both groups pure platelet-rich plasma was used to bioactivate implant surface prior to insertion. Implant and prosthesis survival, clinical variables, radiographic bone level change, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Results: Twenty-five patients were treated in the control group (58 standard length implants) and 27 in the test group (42 SIs). After 3 years of follow-up no implant failure and biological or mechanical complications were recorded. Marginal bone loss, soft tissue, and oral hygiene parame- ters were similar in the 2 groups at both 1 and 3 years’ follow-up. Postoperative pain, swelling and other symptoms and daily activities were better in the SIs group than in the SA group, while patients’ satisfaction after 1 year was similar. Conclusions: In spite of comparable medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, when the residual ridge height is sufficient for a safe placement, SIs may be preferred due to simplified pro- tocol, less invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced postoperative discomfort as compared to SA. KEYWORDS dental implants, posterior maxilla, quality of life, short implants, sinus augmentation 1 | INTRODUCTION Implant placement is a treatment option for partially or totally edentu- lous jaws. Following tooth loss, physiological progressive resorption occurs in the alveolar bone, which in case of maxillary posterior regions, often leads to an insufficient bone volume making unfeasible the place- ment of dental implants of standard length (10 mm). Such reduced bone height in posterior maxilla may be overcome by bone reconstruc- tion procedures like the sinus floor augmentation that aims at creating a thicker layer of bone at the basis of the sinus cavity. The Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cid V C 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1 Received: 13 June 2017 | Revised: 17 September 2017 | Accepted: 3 November 2017 DOI: 10.1111/cid.12563