ArticleBMC oral health2026
Long-term clinical outcomes in short (6 mm) versus standard (8.5 mm) implants: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes in short (6 mm) and standard implants (8.5 mm) and to identify clinical and prosthetic factors associated with marginal bone loss (MBL). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 84 implants (39 short, 45 standard) were placed in 73 patients between 2012 and 2021. Clinical and radiographic parameters, including marginal bone loss (MBL), crown–implant ratio (CIR), abutment height, insertion depth, emergence profile, and emergence angle, were recorded. MBL was compared between short and standard implant, and its associations with patient-, implant-, and prosthesis-related factors were analyzed. Statistical analyses included t-tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, Spearman’s correlation, and linear mixed-effects models (p < 0.05).
resultsThe mean follow-up period was 6.52 ± 2.81 years. No significant difference in MBL was observed between standard (0.12 ± 0.07 mm) and short implants (0.05 ± 0.08 mm, p > 0.05). Short implants showed a significantly higher CIR than standard implants (1.96 ± 0.05 vs. 1.41 ± 0.05, p < 0.001), although CIR was not significantly associated with MBL. Insertion depth was positively associated with MBL (r = 0.372, p < 0.001).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this retrospective study, in sites with limited vertical bone height where short implants were indicated, long-term marginal bone loss was comparable to that observed in sites restored with standard implants placed in sites with sufficient bone height. Insertion depth, rather than implant length alone, was associated with marginal bone loss. When appropriate surgical and prosthetic protocols are applied, short implants may serve as a reliable treatment option in sites with limited vertical bone height.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.