Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34268630›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of implant dentistry2021

Single-crown restorations supported by short implants (6 mm) compared with standard-length implants (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.

Helle Baungaard Nielsen, Søren Schou, Niels Henrik Bruun, Thomas Starch-Jensen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of implant dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04518020 (Single Crown Supported by Short Implant Versus Standard Implant in Conjunction With Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation in the Posterior), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-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.

NCT04518020 naunknown statusnot on this map

Single Crown Supported by Short Implant Versus Standard Implant in Conjunction With Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation in the Posterior: a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorAalborg University HospitalRan2016 to 2025Enrolled40ConditionsDental Implant FailedArms40 patients will be randomly allocated to short implants and standard implants in conjunction with MSFA
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Helle Baungaard NielsenDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. heban@dcm.aau.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-3240-8209
Søren SchouDepartment of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Niels Henrik BruunUnit of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Thomas Starch-JensenDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aalborg University Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of the present study was to test the H0-hypothesis of no difference in the clinical and radiographical treatment outcome of single-crown restorations supported by short implants compared with standard length implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) after 1 year of functional implant loading. Forty patients with partial edentulism in the posterior part of the maxilla were randomly allocated to treatment involving single-crown restorations supported by short implants or standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. Clinical and radiographical evaluation were used to assess survival of suprastructures and implants, peri-implant marginal bone loss (PIMBL), biological, and mechanical complications.

resultsBoth treatment modalities were characterized by 100% survival of suprastructures and implants after 1 year. Mean PIMBL was 0.60 mm with short implants compared with 0.51 mm with standard length implants after 1 year of functional loading. There were no statistically significant differences in survival of suprastructure and implants, PIMBL, and mechanical complications between the two treatment modalities. However, a higher incidence of biological complications was associated with standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA.

conclusionWithin the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that single-crown restorations supported by short implants seems to be comparable with standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. However, long-term studies are needed before final conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.Gov ID: NCT04518020 . Date of registration: August 14, 2020, retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

Sinus Floor AugmentationTooth LossCrownsHumansMaxillaTreatment OutcomeBone augmentationBone substitutesClinical trialControlledDental implantsDental prosthesisRandomized

Identifiers

PMID34268630
PMCPMC8282885
OpenAlexW3178976371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.