Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2021
Two short implants versus one short implant with a cantilever: 5-Year results of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01649531 (Two Implants Versus One Implant With a Cantilever - a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Two Implants Versus One Implant With a Cantilever - a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Short implants compared to regular dental implants after bone augmentation in the atrophic posterior mandible: umbrella review and meta-analysis of success outcomes.International journal of implant dentistry · 2023Pooled it
- Cost Effectiveness of Two Short Implants Versus One Short Implant With a Cantilever in the Posterior Region: 7.5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomised Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Trial
- Two short implants versus one short implant with a cantilever: 5-Year results of a randomized clinical trial.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2021Trial
- Long-Term Outcomes of 6-mm Short Implants Supporting Splinted Crowns in Posterior Regions: A 12-Year Prospective Multi-Centre Single-Cohort Study.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2026Article
- Implant-Supported Cantilever Fixed Partial Dentures in the Posterior Region: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Survival Outcomes.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Biomechanical Basis for Bone Healing and Osseointegration of Implants in Sinus Grafts.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Review
- Dimensions of Posterior Implant Restorations Related to Intra-Coronal Cantilever and Occlusal Forces: An In Vitro Study.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2024Article
- Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Single Crowns or Short Fixed Partial Dentures Supported by Short (≤6 mm) Dental Implants: A Systematic Review.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Implant-supported zirconia fixed partial dentures cantilevered in the lateral-posterior area: A 4-year clinical results.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo test whether or not the use of a short implant with a cantilever results in similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants with single tooth reconstructions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-six patients with two adjacent missing teeth in the posterior region were randomly assigned to receive either a single 6-mm implant with a cantilever (ONE-C) or two 6-mm implants (TWO). Fixed reconstructions were inserted 3-6 months after implant placement and patients were re-examined up to 5 years (FU-5).
resultsA total of 26 patients were available for re-examination at FU-5. The survival rate amounted to 84.2% in ONE-C and to 80.4% in TWO (inter-group: p = .894). Technical complication rates amounted to 64.2% (ONE-C) and to 54.4% (TWO) (inter-group: p = 1.000). From baseline to FU-5, the median changes of the marginal bone levels were 0.13 mm in ONE-C and 0.05 mm in TWO (inter-group: p = .775). Probing depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque control record values showed no significant differences between the two treatment modalities (p > .05).
conclusionsShort implants with a cantilever render similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants at 5 years, however, they tend to fail at earlier time points suggesting an overload of the implants. Considering the modest survival rates, the clinical indication of either treatment option needs to be carefully evaluated. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01649531).
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.