SynthesisClinical oral investigations2018
Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of short implants vs. standard implants in edentulous patients. An umbrella review.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Short implants compared to regular dental implants after bone augmentation in the atrophic posterior mandible: umbrella review and meta-analysis of success outcomes.International journal of implant dentistry · 2023Pooled it
- Short versus standard-length implants: A systematic review on clinical outcomes and success rates.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Biomechanical behavior of implants with different diameters in relation to simulated bone loss- an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Short and Ultra-Short Implants, in Association with Simultaneous Internal Sinus Lift in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Five-Year Retrospective Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Short Implants versus Longer Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with a Post-Loading Follow-Up Duration of 5 Years.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Does the Length of Mini Dental Implants Affect Their Resistance to Failure by Overloading?Dentistry journal · 2022Article
- Short versus Longer Implants in Sites without the Need for Bone Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Usefulness of Magnetic Mallet in Oral Surgery and Implantology: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Implant Diameter, Length, and the Insertion Torque/Depth Integral: A Study Using Polyurethane Foam Blocks.Dentistry journal · 2020Article
- Principles of biomechanics in oral implantology.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2019Article
- Occlusal overload with dental implants: a review.International journal of implant dentistry · 2019Review
- Oral bacterial colonization on dental implants restored with titanium or zirconia abutments: 6-month follow-up.Clinical oral investigations · 2018Article
- Prosthetic Rehabilitation of the Partially Edentulous Atrophic Posterior Mandible with Short Implants (≤ 8 mm) Compared with the Sandwich Osteotomy and Delayed Placement of Standard Length Implants (> 8 mm): a Systematic Review.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to compare the survival rates between short implants (length < 10 mm) versus standard-length implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted in grafted bone. As secondary outcomes, marginal bone loss and survival rates of the implant supported prostheses were also analysed. MATERIALS AND
methodsRandomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared both techniques were searched on three electronic databases till June 2016, a manual search was performed on the bibliography of the collected articles, and the authors were contacted for additional references. The estimates of the interventions were expressed in relative risk (RR), mean implant survival rates and mean differences in marginal bone.
resultsEight RCTs were included in this study. From a total of 458 short implants, 15 failed (mean survival rates = 96.7%), While from 488 regular implants, 13 failed (mean survival rates = 97.3%). The technique did not significantly affect: the implant failure rate (P > 0.05), with RR of 1.34 (95% CI 0.67-2.87), the mean differences of marginal bone loss (P = 0.18; MD - 0.04 mm [- 0.10; 0.02] 95% CI), at loading or prosthesis failures rates (RR:0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.41). The mean differences of marginal bone at 1 year follow-up (post loading) presented significant marginal changes in the short implant group (P = 0.002; MD - 0.10 mm [- 0.16; - 0.03] 95% CI) although a significant high heterogeneity was found between groups.
conclusionsThis systematic review suggests no difference between both techniques in the treatment of atrophic arches. However, more long-term RCTs are needed to evaluate the predictability at the long run. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of short implants might be considered an alternative treatment, since it usually requires fewer surgical phases and tends to be a more affordable option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.