Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33025645›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral implants research2021

Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Felix L Guljé, Henny J A Meijer, Ingemar Abrahamsson, Christopher A Barwacz, Stephen Chen, Paul J Palmer, Homayoun Zadeh, Clark M Stanford

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Felix L GuljéDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Henny J A MeijerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Department of Implant Dentistry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1702-6031
Ingemar AbrahamssonDepartment of Periodontology, University of Gothenburg, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Christopher A BarwaczDepartment of Family Dentistry, University of Iowa College of Dentistry & Dental Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Stephen ChenDepartment of Periodontics, Melbourne, School of Dental Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Paul J PalmerKing's College London Dental Institute at Guy's King's and St Thomas' Hospitals, London, UK.
Homayoun ZadehVISTA Institute for Therapeutic Innovations, Woodland Hills, CA, USA.
Clark M StanfordDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLSt Thomas' Hospital · GBThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

DENTSPLY Implants
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm or 11-mm implants, placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible, during a 5-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND

methodsNinety-five patients with adequate bone height for 11-mm implants, were randomly allocated to a 6-mm group (test group with short implants) or an 11-mm group (control group with standard-length implants). Two or three implants of the same length were placed in each patient and after 6 weeks loaded with a splinted provisional restoration. This was followed by definitive splinted restoration 6 months after implant placement. Clinical and radiographic parameters, including the occurrence of complications were recorded.

resultsA total of 49 patients were enrolled to receive 6-mm implants (n = 108) and 46 patients to receive 11-mm implants (n = 101). Three implants (two of 6 mm and one of 11 mm in length) were lost before loading and one 6-mm implant after 15 months of function, and one 11-mm implant was lost during the first year of function. The 5-year survival rates were 96.0% and 98.9% in the 6-mm and 11-mm group, respectively. The mean marginal bone level changes 5 years post-loading were 0.01 ± 0.45 mm (bone gain) in the 6-mm group and -0.12 ± 0.93 mm (bone loss) in the 11-mm group (p = .7670). Clinical parameters, including plaque, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth were not significantly different between the groups, and also technical complications were low.

conclusionThe clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm short and 11-mm standard-length implants were not different during a 5-year evaluation period.

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossDental ImplantsImmediate Dental Implant LoadingDental Implantation, EndosseousDental Prosthesis DesignDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedDental Restoration FailureFollow-Up StudiesHumansTreatment OutcomeDental Implantsdental implantsmarginal bone lossrandomized controlled trialshortsurvival

Identifiers

PMID33025645
PMCPMC7821315
OpenAlexW3091949534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.