SynthesisFrontiers in oral health2025
Clinical performance of short implants vs. standard implants in edentulous patients. An umbrella review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oral health, 2025. 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.
- Minimally Invasive Implant Rehabilitation in Geriatric Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Contemporary Strategies to Avoid Extensive Bone Augmentation Procedures.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Performance of ChatGPT in dental implant treatment planning: evaluation using the modified DISCERN, Global Quality Score, and accuracy-safety score.BMC oral health · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To assess the clinical performance of short implants compared to standard-length implants in edentulous patients through an umbrella review. Material and methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, SciELO, Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and OpenGrey, covering literature up to June 2025. Included studies were systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, that compared short implants with standard-length implants, with or without bone augmentation, reporting on implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biological or prosthetic complications. Reviews of a narrative nature, rapid reviews, clinical trials, observational or experimental studies, case reports, editorials, letters, protocols, and posters were excluded. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Results: From an initial retrieval of 790 records, 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. The data showed no significant differences in survival rates, implant failure, or prosthetic complications between short and standard implants. However, short implants showed less marginal bone loss and fewer biological complications. Conclusion: Based on high-confidence systematic reviews, short implants provide comparable clinical outcomes to standard-length implants and are a viable, less invasive alternative for patients with reduced vertical bone height. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42020218497, PROSPERO CRD42020218497.
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.