Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42321524›Full record

ReviewOdontology2026

Clinical success of single crowns supported by short implants-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lívia Maiumi Uehara, Maria Eduarda Dagostim Brincas, João Marcos Carvalho-Silva, Andréa Cândido Dos Reis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lívia Maiumi UeharaDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Maria Eduarda Dagostim BrincasDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
João Marcos Carvalho-SilvaDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Andréa Cândido Dos ReisDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. andreare73@yahoo.com.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2307-1720

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Short dental implants (SDIs) have emerged as a promising, less invasive alternative to conventional-length implants (CLDIs) for oral rehabilitation in patients with limited bone height, reducing the need for additional surgical procedures while maintaining functional and aesthetic success. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer: "Do single crowns supported by SDIs have a clinical success rate comparable to (or non-inferior to) that of CLDIs?", focusing on survival rates, periodontal health, marginal bone loss (MBL), and biological complications. A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, Lilacs, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest, including all available years. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials comparing single crowns supported by SDIs and CLDIs were included. Studies had to assess survival, periodontal health, MBL, and biological complications. Retrospective, non-comparative, and unspecified designs, reviews, and case reports were excluded. Screening and selection were conducted through titles, abstracts, and full-text reviews. Following PRISMA guidelines, data extraction and quality assessment were performed. The review was registered in PROSPERO. Risk of bias was evaluated using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and meta-analyses were conducted with random-effects models, with a statistical significance of p < 0.05. The outcomes evaluated were implant survival, MBL, and probing depth (PD), measured by standardized mean differences (SMD) and relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 1146 potential studies were identified; 626 were screened, 30 fully reviewed, and 17 included. All studies showed a high risk of bias. SDIs presented survival rates comparable to CLDIs in both splinted (RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.96-1.00; p = 0.05) and non-splinted single crowns (RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.91-1.00; p = 0.07). MBL showed a small but statistically significant reduction for both (non-splinted: SMD = - 0.11; p = 0.03; splinted: SMD = - 0.41; p = 0.01), with lower PD in non-splinted crowns (SMD = - 0.64; p = 0.03). This systematic review with meta-analysis suggests that SDIs achieve clinical outcomes comparable to, and not inferior to, CLDIs for splinted or non-splinted single crowns regarding implant survival up to 10 years. Despite methodological limitations, SDIs may represent a viable and less invasive treatment alternative.

Indexed as

Clinical successMeta-analysisShort dental implantsSingle crownsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42321524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.