ArticleBioinformation2025
Short versus standard-length implants: A systematic review on clinical outcomes and success rates.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper 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
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
Dental implants have become a reliable solution for edentulism, yet bone limitations often necessitate alternative approaches such as short implants. This systematic review evaluates and compares the clinical outcomes and success rates of short dental implants (≤8 mm) versus standard-length implants (>8 mm) in various clinical scenarios. Data from multiple studies were analyzed to assess implant survival, marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and long-term stability. The findings suggest that, when appropriately indicated, short implants demonstrate comparable success and survival rates to their longer counterparts, particularly in atrophic ridges where bone augmentation may be avoided. However, variations in surgical techniques, prosthetic protocols and patient-related factors can influence outcomes. Thus, short implants represent a viable, minimally invasive alternative, provided patient selection and clinical protocols are well-considered.
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.