Author Correction: A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Innovative design of a novel combined intraosseous-subperiosteal hybrid implant for severe atrophic edentulous dentition: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026
   Article
2. A 4-mm-Short Implant Rehabilitation in the Posterior Maxilla With Dynamic Navigation Technology: A Case Report After 10 Years of Postloading Follow-Up.Case reports in dentistry · 2026
   Article
3. Four-mm-short implants in the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws: A retrospective study on 212 patients with a mean follow-up of 8.02 years.Clinical oral implants research · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation.2021

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.