SynthesisClinical oral implants research2025
Implant Survival in Patient Populations With a Mean Age of 65-75 Years Compared to Older Cohorts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally Invasive Implant Rehabilitation in Geriatric Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Contemporary Strategies to Avoid Extensive Bone Augmentation Procedures.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Tenting screw (tent pole) technique in vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Analysis of prosthetic outcomes and influencing factors in patients with alveolar bone atrophy.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Technical and biological complications of implant-supported fixed complete dentures: a retrospective cohort study with up to 17 years of follow-up.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate implant survival and success rates in elderly patients, comparing younger old adults (65-75 years) to older implant patients (> 75 years).
methodsA systematic search was conducted using Medline, Cochrane Library, and PubMed Central for clinical studies on implant therapy in patients aged 65 and older. Outcomes included implant survival and success rates, peri-implant parameters, bone-level changes (BLC), and type of restoration and retention. Three- and five-year survival and success rates, as well as implant loss per 100 implant-years, were estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Poisson regression models and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were used to compare study groups, and meta-regression with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) assessed BLC.
resultsTwenty-seven studies with a total of 3892 implants were included. Patients > 75 years had significantly higher five-year survival rates (96.8%, CI: 95.9-97.5) compared to the 65-75 age group (92.1%, CI: 83.0-96.4; p = 0.031), with lower implant loss rates per 100 implant-years. No significant difference in success rates was observed (p = 0.229). Although plaque and bleeding on probing (BOP) were more frequent in the older group, there was no significant difference in BLC (mean difference: 0.41 mm; p = 0.189). In patients > 65 with implant overdentures, single attachments showed significantly higher implant loss rates than bars (p = 0.035).
conclusionsDental implants are a reliable treatment for older adults, including those over 75 years. Despite more frequent plaque and BOP in the older group, peri-implant bone remained stable. Splinting implants in overdenture wearers aged > 65 is associated with 5.6 times higher survival rates.
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.