ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Survival Rates Between Short and Standard Dental Implants in the Posterior Jaw: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionShort dental implants have been proposed as a minimally invasive alternative to standard implants for rehabilitation of posterior edentulous regions with limited bone availability. However, concerns remain regarding their long-term survival and risk of failure compared to standard-length implants. This study aimed to compare the survival and failure rates of short (<10 mm) and standard (≥10 mm) dental implants placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 207 patients who received 363 dental implants in the posterior jaw. The implants were categorized as short implants (<10 mm; n = 141) and standard implants (≥10 mm; n = 222). Demographic characteristics, implant-related variables, and clinical outcomes were retrieved from the patient records. Implant failure, survival rates, and the influence of jaw location on implant outcomes were assessed. Statistical analyses included chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, independent-samples t-tests, and odds ratio calculations. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe mean age of the study population was 52.1 ± 10.5 years, with 142 (68.6%) males and 65 (31.4%) females. Overall, implant failure was significantly higher among short implants than among standard implants (p < 0.001). Standard implants demonstrated significantly lower odds of failure than short implants (OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.15-0.57). In the maxilla, the failure rates were 18 (28.6%) for short implants and 8 (8.5%) for standard implants (p = 0.002), whereas in the mandible, the corresponding rates were 10 (12.8%) and 7 (5.5%), respectively (p = 0.110). The cumulative survival rates were lower for short implants as compared to standard implants.
conclusionStandard dental implants demonstrated significantly higher survival rates and lower failure rates than short implants in posterior jaw rehabilitation. Although short implants remain a useful treatment option in anatomically restricted sites, careful case selection is necessary, particularly in the posterior maxilla, where the risk of failure appears to be greater.
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.