Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39676168›Full record

ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025

Clinical Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Short Implants Placed in Posterior Maxilla: A Case-Control Study.

Teresa Lombardi, Antonio Rapani, Fatima Ezeddine, Giulia Perazzolo, Roberto Di Lenarda, Stefano Sivolella, Claudio Stacchi

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
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

7 authors.

Teresa LombardiDepartment of Health Sciences, "Magna Græcia" University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Antonio RapaniDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9767-4401
Fatima EzeddineDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Giulia PerazzoloDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Roberto Di LenardaDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Stefano SivolellaDepartment of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1916-1640
Claudio StacchiDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4017-4980

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionShort implants are today a reliable, minimally invasive option for the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla. However, maintaining marginal bone stability remains a crucial factor for long-term success, particularly in the case of short implants. The present multicenter prospective case-control study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of bone-level and tissue-level short implants in the posterior maxilla, focusing on implant survival and peri-implant marginal bone stability over 1 year of function.

methodsFifty-nine patients who met specific inclusion criteria were enrolled and treated by three clinical centers with a total of 74 short implants, either bone-level (7 mm in length, placed 1 mm sub-crestally) or tissue-level (5 or 6.5 mm in length). The primary outcome was physiological bone remodeling (PBR) measured via radiographs at baseline (T0), prosthesis delivery (T1), and 12 months post-loading (T2). Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate differences in PBR between groups, with multivariate analysis assessing the influence of various patient and site-specific factors.

resultsThe final analysis included 58 patients who were treated with a total of 71 short implants, comprising 36 tissue-level and 35 bone-level implants (one patient dropped out as he did not attend follow-up visits on time). All implants were rehabilitated with fixed, screwed prosthetics after 5 months, with no recorded complications up to 1 year of loading. Stability was similar between the two implant types at T0 and T1, with no significant differences in insertion torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Multivariate analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between insertion torque and ISQ at T0, as well as with bicortical engagement of the implant apex with the sinus floor. Tissue-level implants demonstrated significantly lower peri-implant bone remodeling (PBR) compared to bone-level implants at both T1 (0.11 ± 0.27 mm vs. 0.34 ± 0.35 mm, p = 0.004) and T2 (0.30 ± 0.23 mm vs. 0.55 ± 0.42 mm, p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis showed a significant positive correlation between PBR (T0-T1) and thin vertical mucosal thickness (≤ 2 mm) at T0 in both tissue-level and bone-level implants. Additionally, PBR (T1-T2) in both groups significantly correlated with the use of short prosthetic abutments (≤ 2 mm) and, only in bone-level implants, with crown emergence angles > 30°.

conclusionBoth tissue-level and bone-level short implants are effective options for implant-supported rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla. Tissue-level short implants offer superior marginal bone stability compared to bone-level implants placed subcrestally, suggesting their favorable use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsDental Prosthesis DesignMaxillaAdultAgedBone RemodelingCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDental Implantsabutmentsatrophic maxillacrestal bone resorptionimplant survival

Identifiers

PMID39676168
PMCPMC11798899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.