A Targeted Review of Study Outcomes With Short (≤7 mm) Endosseous Dental Implants Placed in Partially Edentulous Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generally, threaded root-form endosseous dental implants are thought to perform poorly in short lengths (i.e., < 10 mm). However, whether modifications in implant surface geometry will improve performance of short threaded implants is less clear. METHODS: The relationship between dental implant failure rates and their surface geometry, length, and location (maxilla versus mandible) was explored in the published literature. Using a MEDLINE search (1985 through 2001), studies were sought with the following criteria: 1) data suitable to calculate failure rates of implant lengths < or = 7 mm versus > 7 mm; 2) data separable into maxillary versus mandibular results; 3) criteria for "failure" clearly defined; and 4) minimal functional period of 2 years. RESULTS: Twelve papers were identified as follows: eight with machined threaded implants, two with acid-treated threaded implants, and two with sintered porous-surfaced press-fit implants. The following results were found: 1) machined surface implants experienced greater failure rates than textured surface implants; 2) with the exception of sintered porous-surfaced implants, 7 mm long dental implants appear to have higher failure rates than those > 7 mm length; and 3) with textured surface implants, higher failure rates were more likely in the maxilla than in the mandible, but with machined surface implants there were no differences in failure rates between maxilla and mandible. CONCLUSIONS: Dental implant surface geometry is a major determinant in how well these implants perform in short lengths, defined here as lengths of < or = 7 mm. While threaded implants show higher failure rates in short versus longer lengths, sintered porous-surfaced implants perform well in the defined "short" lengths. More studies are needed to better assess the performance of short, acid-washed threaded implants.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".