ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Analysis of ultra-short implants with different angulations: a retrospective case-control study with 2 to 9 years of follow-up.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- 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 · 2026Article
- Microbiota of Peri-Implant Healthy Tissues, Peri-Implant Mucositis, and Peri-Implantitis: A Comprehensive Review.Microorganisms · 2024Review
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
objectivesDoes the angulation of ultrashort implants influence the stability of the peri-implant bone? The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-axial ultrashort implants after 2 to 9 years of follow-up in resorbed alveolar ridges. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll partially edentulous patients with ultrashort implants (< 6 mm) used in the posterior region of an atrophic mandible or maxilla, to support partial dentures in conjunction with standard implants, were included in this study. Peri-implant bone loss, success and survival rates, crestal bone levels, crown-to-implant ratio and implant angulation were measured for each implant. Implants were divided into two groups: straight implants with angulation < 17° (control group) and tilted implants with angulation > 17° (test group). Statistical analysis was used to find any significant differences between the two study groups and to investigate significant linear correlations among all the variables (p = 0.05).
resultsA total of 42 ultrashort implants with a mean of 4 years of follow-up were included: 20 ultrashort axially loaded implants and 22 tilted implants. Mean crestal bone levels from baseline loading to maximum follow-up did not reveal statistical differences in regard to PBL; mean success and survival rates were 100% in all groups.
conclusionsPBL, success and survival rates of axial ultrashort implants and tilted ultrashort implants are comparable to those of conventional implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This retrospective study revealed that ultrashort implants, even when placed with an angulation > 17°, can safely be used to support partial fixed prostheses. Further prospective clinical studies with larger samples and prospective design are needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38183469What 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.