Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33917587›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Fabio Rossi, Lorenzo Tuci, Lorenzo Ferraioli, Emanuele Ricci, Andreea Suerica, Daniele Botticelli, Gerardo Pellegrino, Pietro Felice

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical efficacy of extra-short implant (4 mm) placed in posterior areas: a Meta-analysis.Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Psychosocial Impact of Maxilla-For-AllJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Fabio RossiDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.
Lorenzo TuciDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.
Lorenzo FerraioliDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.
Emanuele RicciDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.
Andreea SuericaARDEC Academy, 47923 Rimini, Italy.
Daniele BotticelliARDEC Academy, 47923 Rimini, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2804-1632
Gerardo PellegrinoDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8782-8991
Pietro FeliceDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.
University of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn edentulous patients, bone resorption cannot allow the installation of standard implants and it is demanded to use short implants in the residual alveolar bone or longer implants in grafted bone.

aimTo compare the survival and bone level changes of standard plus short 4-mm implants used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with standard (10-mm) implants placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure. MATERIAL AND

methodsFull-arch FDPs supported by six implants were randomly placed in both groups. In the control group, all implants were 10 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. The distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was installed after 4 months from bilaterally sinus floor elevation. In the test group (short group), the distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was 4 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. No sinus floor elevations were performed in the test group. Clinical assessments and X-rays were taken at prosthesis delivering and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also evaluated before surgery and after 6, 12, and 24 months.

resultsThe changes over time of the bone level for the short implants were -0.01 ± 0.11 mm, -0.04 ± 0.13 mm, -0.17 ± 0.29 mm, and -0.28 ± 0.37 mm after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from prosthesis delivering, respectively. For the standard implants, bone changes were -0.21 ± 0.33 mm (

conclusionsSimilar results on implant survival rate and marginal bone loss were observed for the short and standard implants, placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure, used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch FDP. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups (

Indexed as

Alveolar Ridge AugmentationSinus Floor AugmentationDental Restoration FailureFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaxillaProstheses and ImplantsTreatment Outcomefull arch fixed dental prosthesesshort implantssinus floor elevation

Identifiers

PMID33917587
PMCPMC8038839
OpenAlexW3152386461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.