SynthesisJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
The rehabilitation of posterior atrophic maxilla by using the graftless option of short implant versus conventional long implant with sinus graft: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trial.
Synthesis in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of short implants vs. standard implants in edentulous patients. An umbrella review.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing short implants to standard dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up.Evidence-based dentistry · 2023Pooled it
- Zygomatic Implants for Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Maxilla: Clinical Indications, Outcomes, Complications, and Evidence Gaps-A Comprehensive Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Treatment of Severe Atrophy with Juxta-Osseous Implants: A Systematic Review and Case Report.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Technical Note on a Modified Subcrestal Buccal Flap Approach to All-on-Four: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
- Specially designed and CAD/CAM manufactured allogeneic bone blocks using for augmentation of a highly atrophic maxilla show a stable base for an all-on-six treatment concept: a case report.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of short implant versus conventional long implant with sinus graft in patients rehabilitated for posterior atrophic maxilla. Setting and Design: Systematic review and meta analysis. Materials and Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in Pub Med, Embase, and Medline with supplemented by manual search up to December 2019. The randomized controlled trial (RCTs) comparing short implant (<8.5 mm) and long implant (>8.5 mm) with sinus graft were included. (Prospero CRD42020186972). Statistical Analysis Used: Random-effect model, fixed-effect model, A funnel plot and the Egger's test. Results: Twenty-two Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed with 667 patients and 1595 implants (short implant:767, Long implant:835). No significant difference of implant survival rate was recorded for short and long implant (at patient level: RR: 1.01, 95% CI = 0.52-2.0, P = 0.87, I Conclusion: There was no significance difference in implant survival rate and marginal bone resorption recorded for both the short implant and long implant with sinus graft, in the patients rehabilitated with posterior atrophic maxilla. Hence, short implant is a suitable alternative to long implant with sinus graft, for the rehabilitation posterior atrophic maxilla.
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.