Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34398327›Full record

ReviewClinical oral investigations2021

Clinical performance of short versus standard dental implants in vertically augmented bone: an overview of systematic reviews.

Patrícia Pauletto, Edwin Ruales-Carrera, Luis André Mezzomo, Cristine Miron Stefani, Mario Taba, Reginaldo Bruno Gonçalves, Carlos Flores-Mir, Graziela De Luca Canto

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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.

Patrícia PaulettoBrazilian Centre for Evidence-Based Research (COBE), Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1762-7059
Edwin Ruales-CarreraCenter for Education and Research On Dental Implants (CEPID), Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7385-5673
Luis André MezzomoDepartment of Dentistry, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Delfino Conti, s/nSanta Catarina, Trindade, Florianópolis, 88040-900, Brazil. lmezzomo@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2078-336X
Cristine Miron StefaniDepartment of Dentistry, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4712-9779
Mario TabaDepartment of Oral Surgery and Periodontology, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7098-5090
Reginaldo Bruno GonçalvesDepartment of Periodontics, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Carlos Flores-MirSchool of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0887-9385
Graziela De Luca CantoBrazilian Centre for Evidence-Based Research, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7986-8317

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo answer the question: What do we know so far about the clinical performance of short implants (≤ 7 mm) when compared to standard length implants in vertically augmented bone, as well as which is the overall confidence of the systematic reviews (SRs) about this topic? MATERIALS AND

methodsAn overview of SRs was conducted. The searches were performed in six electronic databases and grey literature. SRs about short (≤ 7 mm) versus standard dental implants performance in vertically augmented bone were included. The assessed outcomes were marginal bone loss (MBL), implant survival (IS), prosthetic (PC) and biological complications (BC), costs, surgical time, and patient satisfaction. AMSTAR 2 was used to evaluate the overall confidence of included SRs.

resultsThirteen SRs were included. Nine of twelve SRs reported a lower MBL for the short implant group. All the included SRs showed no difference in the IS between groups. A higher rate of BC was reported for standard-length implants in four out of five SRs. No differences regarding PC were reported in four of five SRs. Information related to patient preference, cost, and surgery time were underreported. The confidence evaluation of the SRs was stratified as low for five SRs and critically low for eight SRs.

conclusionsIn an overall low-to-very low confidence levels, short implants appear to perform better in the mid-term (up to 5 years) than standard dental implants associated with vertical bone augmentation regarding MBL and BC, but they have a similar performance regarding IS rates and PC. There is an imperative need to improve the methodological quality of SRs, and efforts should focus on conducting RCTs to broaden the knowledge on this topic. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Short implants could represent a viable, simpler, and less invasive treatment when available bone height is limited.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Implantation, EndosseousDental Prosthesis DesignDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedDental Restoration FailureHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicDental ImplantsOverviewShort implantsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34398327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.