Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2025
Cost Effectiveness of Two Short Implants Versus One Short Implant With a Cantilever in the Posterior Region: 7.5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01649531 (Two Implants Versus One Implant With a Cantilever - a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Two Implants Versus One Implant With a Cantilever - a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost Effectiveness of Two Short Implants Versus One Short Implant With a Cantilever in the Posterior Region: 7.5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomised Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo compare long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a single short implant (6 mm) supporting a cantilevered restoration versus two adjacent short implants with non-splinted single crowns over a 7.5-year follow-up and determine which approach is more cost effective. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 36 patients with at least a two-tooth gap in the posterior region were randomised to receive either one short implant with a cantilever prosthesis (ONE-C) or two short implants with individual crowns (TWO). Fixed restorations were placed 3-6 months post implantation, and patients were evaluated at baseline and at 6 months and 1, 3, 5 and 7.5 years. Kaplan-Meier curves, mixed-effects models and cost-effectiveness models were used to compare the groups.
resultsTwenty-five patients (15 in ONE-C, 10 in TWO) completed the 7.5-year follow-up. Implant survival was 83.3% in group ONE-C and 86.6% in group TWO, with no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.772). No statistically significant differences were found between groups for marginal bone levels (mean difference -0.16 [95% CI: -0.7 to 0.3] p = 0.57), probing depth (mean difference -0.13 [95% CI: -0.5 to 0.3] p = 0.58), bleeding on probing (mean difference 0.0 [95% CI: -0.0; 0.2] p = 0.31) or plaque levels (mean difference -0.0 [95% CI: -0.1 to 0.1] p = 0.93). Technical complications were more frequent in the ONE-C group (64%) than in the TWO group (36%).
conclusionBoth treatment approaches showed comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes. Short implants supporting cantilever restorations were generally more cost effective than two short implants but exhibited higher early complication and failure rates, likely related to mechanical overload.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01649531.
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.