ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Short (6 mm) and Regular Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla-7-Years Follow-up Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Outcomes of Short versus Long Dental Implants with Sinus Lift in Atrophied Posterior Maxillae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Puerto Rico health sciences journal · 2025Pooled 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
- Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods for Gingival Thickness Assessment: Color-Coded Probe Versus Ultrasound Measurements.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Zirconia Dental Implant Designs and Surface Modifications: A Narrative Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Rehabilitation Using Implants with Sloped Platform Edge vs. Standard Platform with Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Control Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Survival Rates of Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) Used as an Alternative to Longer (>6 mm) Implants for the Rehabilitation of Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review of RCTs.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- Allogenic Bone Graft in Dentistry: A Review of Current Trends and Developments.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- An Experimental Anodized and Low-Pressure Oxygen Plasma-Treated Titanium Dental Implant Surface-Preliminary Report.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Soft-Tissue Augmentation around Dental Implants with a Connective Tissue Graft (CTG) and Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix (CMX)-5-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Survival of surface-modified short versus long implants in complete or partially edentulous patients with a follow-up of 1 year or more: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2022Review
- The role of folded fibular flap in patients' reconstruction of mandibular defects: a retrospective clinical study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Preliminary Study with the Use of a Titanium Mesh as Space Maker and Implant Primary Stabilization for One-Stage Sinus Lift in Cases with Less Than 1.5 mm Residual Bone.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Clinical Outcome of Dental Implants after Maxillary Sinus Augmentation with and without Bone Grafting: A Retrospective Evaluation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Short 6 mm dental implants are considered as an alternative to the maxillary sinus elevation and bone augmentation procedure where there is a reduced alveolar ridge height. The aim of this study was to compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants (6 mm) and regular length implants (11-13 mm) when placed in combination with bone grafting and loaded with a single non splinted crown, seven years after placing the implant. It was conducted as a controlled clinical study of 30 patients with partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla. The protocol included radiological and clinical evaluation of the C/I ratio (length of the superstructure divided by the length of the implant crestal part), marginal bone level (MBL), ultrasonography measurement of soft tissue surrounding implant (STT), patient-reported outcomes, and biological and technical complications. A total number of 28 implants (93%) remained integrated during follow-up period. MBL of 0.50 and 0.52 mm was observed for short implants and regular implants, respectively. MBL was checked for correlation with STT, and a negative correlation was found between MBL: STT. Our study has demonstrated a significantly lower implant survival rate for short implants compared to regular implants (87% compared to 100%). Despite the loss of several implants, good clinical results were achieved in the remaining implants in both groups. It is, therefore, worth considering short implants as an alternative to regular implants with a sinus lift surgery.
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.