ArticleBiomedical reports2026
Efficacy of narrow-diameter implants in restoring dentition defects in patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) for restoring dentition defects in patients with diabetes and compare their clinical/radiographic outcomes with patients without diabetes (controls). Databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar) were searched (January 1, 2000-July 15, 2025) for studies comparing NDI outcomes between patients with and without diabetes. The methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v5.4 software. The nine included studies (410 patients; 688 implants) demonstrated high overall methodological quality. There was no significant intergroup difference in the survival rate [risk ratio (RR)=1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93, 1.07; P=1.00]. Regarding radiographic outcomes, the diabetic group exhibited greater distal bone loss [mean difference (MD)=0.28 mm, 95% CI 0.02, 0.5; P=0.03), whereas the mesial bone level (MD=0.31 mm; P=0.08] and overall marginal bone level (MD=-0.02 mm; P=0.83) showed no significant differences. Furthermore, the diabetic group had markedly higher long-term (≥3 years) probing depth (MD=0.31 mm; P<0.0001), bleeding on probing (MD=14.41%; P=0.02), and plaque index (MD=13.77%; P=0.04). There was notable heterogeneity among the studies included in the meta-analysis, suggesting that individual studies may have influenced the overall findings. NDIs demonstrated satisfactory short-term survival in patients with diabetes. However, diabetes markedly increased long-term peri-implant inflammation risk and distal bone resorption, necessitating enhanced postoperative monitoring and personalized maintenance.
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.