State of the Art of Short Dental Implants: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short implants (≤8 mm) are manufactured for use in atrophic regions of the jaws. As implant length in many studies has been proven to play a major role in implant survival it is indicated to evaluate survival of short implants in the present literature. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was systematically to evaluate publications concerning short dental implants defined as an implant with a length of ≤8 mm installed in the maxilla or in the mandible with special reference to implant type, survival rate, location of implant site, and observation time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Medline and a hand search were conducted to identify studies concerning short dental implants of length ≤8 mm published between 1992 and October 2009. The articles included in this study report data on implant length ≤8 mm, implant surface, registered region of installment, observation time, single tooth restorations, supporting overdentures, splinted implants, and implants used for prostheses. RESULTS: The 27 included studies represent zero randomized clinical trial studies, 15 prospective nonrandomized, noncontrolled clinical trials, 11 retrospective nonrandomized, noncontrolled clinical trials, and one review. Data on 6-mm implants were few and most frequent represented was manufactured Straumann implants representing 441 out of 549 implants. Brånemark implants, 7 mm in length, comprised 1607 implants out of 1808. Straumann implants, 8 mm in length, comprised 2040 out of 2352 implants. Failures varied between 0 and 14.5%, 0 and 37.5% and 0 and 22.9% of the 6-, 7-, and 8-mm-long implants, respectively. CONCLUSION: Short implant length was not related to observation time, installment region, failures, and dropouts were not specified, subsequently a meta-analysis was not possible to perform.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".