Free download · Periospot
Six millimeters, ten years of data: when the short implant is the smarter call.
In the atrophic posterior maxilla with 5 to 7 mm of bone below the sinus, a randomized trial followed the same patients for ten years: 6-mm implants in native bone against longer implants with a sinus lift. This two-page map turns those results, and two systematic reviews, into a printable case-selection pathway with every number cited.
The numbers the map is built on
96.0% vs 100%
10-year patient-level implant survival, 6-mm implants vs longer implants with sinus elevation. Two failures vs none, p = .24, not statistically significant (Thoma 2024, PMID 38296249).
22 minutes
Shorter mean surgery with the 6-mm implant: 52.6 vs 74.6 minutes with simultaneous grafting (Thoma 2015, PMID 25418606).
1,005 EUR
Lower mean treatment cost per patient in the trial: 941 vs 1,946 EUR at the centers' mid-2010s prices (Thoma 2015, PMID 25418606).
19 RCTs
The 2024 systematic review with trial sequential analysis (2,214 implants): on moderate to high certainty evidence, 6-mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift (Ravida 2024, PMID 38764386).
Differences described as not statistically significant are presented as such in the map. Educational aid for dental professionals; not a treatment protocol.
What is inside the two pages
The decision pathway
One page from CBCT measurement to a defensible plan: what the 10-year randomized evidence supports at 5 to 7 mm of residual ridge height, and where that evidence stops.
Every number cited
Survival, surgery time, cost, bone levels, and peri-implantitis rates, each tied to its trial and PMID. Nothing extrapolated beyond the sources.
The honest boundaries
Dropout, trial-era prices, and which differences never reached statistical significance. A map you can defend when a colleague pushes back.
Questions dentists actually ask
Are 6-mm short implants as reliable as longer implants with a sinus lift?
In the randomized trial that followed patients for 10 years in the atrophic posterior maxilla, patient-level survival was 96.0 percent with 6-mm implants versus 100 percent with longer implants and sinus elevation, a difference that was not statistically significant. The map lays out these numbers with their uncertainty so you can weigh them case by case.
Which cases does the decision map cover?
The pathway is built around the trial population: posterior maxilla with 5 to 7 millimeters of residual bone height below the sinus floor. It explicitly flags when a case falls outside that evidence base rather than stretching the data.
Is it really free?
Yes. It is a two-page PDF you can print for the office. You also get the Periospot Brew, practical implant dentistry and periodontics about once a week. Unsubscribe anytime with one click.
Where do the numbers come from?
From the 10-year multicentre randomized trial (Thoma and colleagues), its 1-year and 3-year reports, and two systematic reviews, all verified against PubMed in the companion Periospot article on 6-mm short implants.
Get the decision map
Two pages, every number cited, printable for the office.
Back to the form