ArticleBMC oral health2026
Cost-effectiveness of short implants (6-8.5 mm) compared to regular length implants (> 10 mm) with bone regeneration in posterior atrophic mandible: a 8-year microsimulation model.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of short implants (6-8.5 mm) placed without guided bone regeneration (GBR) vs. regular length implants (> 10 mm) placed with vertical GBR for the rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic mandible (Seibert type II defects).
methodsA discrete-time state-transition microsimulation model was developed to compare two strategies over an 8-year horizon from a private-payer perspective. Clinical inputs were extracted from a recent meta-analysis of randomized trials, while unit costs were obtained from publicly available Chilean fee schedules and converted to 2025 USD using purchasing power parity. Outcomes included implant survival, biological and prosthetic complications, summarized as implant-years (IY) and complication-free IY (CFIY) as a stricter secondary measure. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Uncertainty was addressed through one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (OWSA), and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA, 2,000 iterations).
resultsOver an 8-year horizon, short implants were associated with lower mean costs (USD 3,662 vs. 6,030) and modestly greater effectiveness (6.77 vs. 6.49 IY; 6.71 vs. 6.27 CFIY) compared with regular-length implants with GBR, yielding incremental savings of USD 2,367 and incremental gains of 0.28 IY and 0.44 CFIY. OWSA identified initial implant costs as the most influential parameters. PSA across 2,000 iterations corroborated these findings, with the great majority of simulations falling in the south-east quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane.
conclusionsWithin the Chilean private-payer setting and over an 8-year horizon, single-tooth short implants (6-8.5 mm) placed without GBR were cost-saving and at least non-inferior in effectiveness compared with regular-length implants with vertical GBR for the posterior atrophic mandible. This cost advantage remained consistent across deterministic, probabilistic, and scenario analyses, although transferability to other settings requires re-estimation using local cost structures.
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.