ArticleBDJ open2025
Prospective controlled study comparing 5.5-mm long implants with longer implants to support fixed partial prosthesis in the premolar-molar regions: 12 months follow-up.
Article in BDJ open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis prospective controlled clinical study aimed at evaluating the performance of 5.5 mm-long implants to support two-unit fixed prosthesis in the posterior regions of the mandible and the maxilla. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 44 patients (30 females and 14 males) were included and received 51 test implants (5.5 mm in length) and 51 control implants (≥6.5 mm in length) to support two-unit fixed partial prosthesis in the mandible and the maxilla. Intermediate abutment was used in all cases. The patients were followed for 12 months. Changes in the marginal bone loss, implant survival, and prosthetic complications were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe patient's mean age was 64 years (range: 42-48 years). All the implants in the test group were placed at the molars site compared to 26 implants in the control group (p < 0.001). Bone type (p = 0.224) and insertion torque (p = 0.671) were similar between the groups. None of the implants failed. The changes in marginal bone level at mesial (median: 0.3 mm; range: -1.3 to 2.9 mm for control, and 0.2 mm; -0.7 to 1.6 mm for test; p = 0.138) and at distal (median: 0.3 mm; range: -1.3 to 1.5 mm for control, and 0.2 mm; -1.2 to 1.4 mm for test; p = 0.0633) were similar between the study groups. The prostheses were free of technical complications.
conclusionsThis prospective controlled clinical study supports the use of 5.5-mm long implants in the context of fixed partial prosthesis and posterior regions. No statistically significant differences have been observed in marginal bone stability, implant survival and prosthetic complications compared to longer implants. Within the limits of this study, 5.5 mm implants appear to be a predictable option for fixed posterior partial dentures.
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.