ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020
Clinical Behavior of Short Dental Implants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A network meta-analysis comparing treatment modalities of short and long implants in the posterior maxilla with insufficient bone height.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical success of single crowns supported by short implants-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Odontology · 2026Review
- Analysis of Primary Stability in Two Designs of Ultrashort Implants: In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of particulate bovine bone substitutes for oral regeneration: a narrative review.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Review
- Partial Implant Rehabilitations in the Posterior Regions of the Jaws Supported by Short Dental Implants (7.0 mm): A 7-Year Clinical and 5-Year Radiographical Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Single-crown restorations in premolar-molar regions: short (≤ 6.5) vs longer implants: retrospective cohort study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2022Observational
- 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
- The Anatomical Conditions of the Alveolar Process of the Anterior Maxilla in Terms of Immediate Implantation-Radiological Retrospective Case Series Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Short (6 mm) and Regular Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla-7-Years Follow-up Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Short implants are an increasingly common alternative to other surgical techniques in areas where bone availability is reduced. Despite the advantages they offer, a variety of biological repercussions have been described in the literature that can even lead to the loss of these. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the impact of the use of short implants on their survival and on peri-implant bone loss, evaluating the influence that length, diameter, and crown-to-implant ratio (C/I) have on these parameters. This systematic review was based on guidelines proposed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). An electronic search was conducted using terms related to the use of short implants in partially or totally edentulous patients. A total of five databases were consulted in the literature search: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science. After eliminating the duplicate articles and assessing which ones met the inclusion criteria, 15 articles were included for the qualitative analysis and 14 for the quantitative study. Through meta-analysis, the percentage of implant loss and peri-implant bone loss was estimated. Relating these parameters to length, diameter, and C/I ratio, no significant differences have been found for implant loss (values of
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.