SynthesisPuerto Rico health sciences journal2025
Long-Term Outcomes of Short versus Long Dental Implants with Sinus Lift in Atrophied Posterior Maxillae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Puerto Rico health sciences journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical performance of short implants vs. standard implants in edentulous patients. An umbrella review.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Early Marginal Bone Loss as a Determinant Factor of the Prognosis Rate of Dental Implants: A Prospective Longitudinal Observational Study.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate implant outcomes, including success or survival, complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL), in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing short versus long implants with sinus augmentation (SA) after 5 or more years of loading. The objective was to update the qualitative and quantitative evidence on this topic and provide a comprehensive analysis of the previously identified implant outcomes. Electronic searches were conducted in 4 scientific databases from 2016 through 2024. Only RCTs with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years were included (7 studies); these were rated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool for main outcomes. The overall risk of bias was "High" in 5 studies, whereas 2 studies were rated as "Some concerns." The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with Stata software, version 18, for implant success and survival (2.37; 95% CI: 0.83-6.78, P = .11) and for implant complications (0.88; 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P = .43). The Cohen's d for MBL was -0.41 mm (95% CI: -0.72 to -0.09, P = .01). There was no statistically significant difference in implant success and survival between short and long implants with SA (P = .60). Due to the overall high risk of bias, no definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the success or survival of short versus long implants. Further RCTs with clear descriptions of implant outcomes, rigorous standardization and calibration protocols, meticulous sample-size calculation, and extended follow-up periods are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40163750PMC12424443What 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.