ArticleDentistry journal2022
Does the Length of Mini Dental Implants Affect Their Resistance to Failure by Overloading?
Article in Dentistry journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Crestal Position on Bone-Implant Stress Interface of Three-Implant Splinted Prostheses: A Finite Element Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the failure resistance of different lengths of mini dental implants from the same manufacturer, and to assess their failure following overloading. Materials and Methods: According to the ISO 14801, 15 mini dental implants 2.4 mm in diameter, with lengths of 8.5 mm, 10 mm, or 13 mm, were subjected to compression loading until failure using a universal testing machine. The mean load-to-failure values for each length of the mini dental implants were calculated and analysed using SPSS®, via one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05). Results: The mean load to failure for mini dental implants was 329 N (SD 6.23), 326 N (SD 5.95), and 325 N (SD 6.99) for the 13 mm, 10 mm, and 8.5 mm implants, respectively. A comparison of means showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.70). The tested mini dental implants exhibited bending failure modes below the first thread. Conclusion: Under high compressive loading testing, there was no effect of the length on the failure of the mini dental implants following overloading. Moreover, all tested mini dental implants with different lengths showed the same failure mode and distortion location.
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.