Survival rates of ultra‐short (<6 mm) compared with short locking‐taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior areas: A 5‐year retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short and ultra-short implants represent a predictable treatment, in terms of implant survival, with patients presenting insufficient available bone volumes. Moreover, single crown restorations represent a gold standard in terms of oral hygiene. PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate implant survival, marginal bone loss, and peri-implant complications in 333 locking-taper short and ultra-short implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions of 142 patients. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 5-year recall appointments. RESULTS: All implants placed consisted of 8.0-, 6.0-, and 5.0-mm length, 38.14%, 34.53%, and 27.33%, respectively. Three hundred thirty-two implants (one early failure) were rehabilitated with single crowns in 141 patients. In 45.48% of the implants the crown-to-implant ratio was ≥2, with a mean value of 1.94. Overall implant-based survival after 5 years of follow-up was 96.10%: 96.85%, 95.65%, and 95.60% for 8.0-, 6.0-, and 5.0-mm length implants, respectively (p = 0.82). Overall patient-based survival was 91.55%. Regarding crestal bone level variations, average crestal bone loss and apical shift of the "first bone-to-implant contact point" position were 0.69 and 0.01 mm, respectively. Setting the threshold for excessive bone loss at 1 mm, during the time interval from loading to follow-up, 28 implants experienced loss of supporting bone greater than 1 mm: 19 of them (67.85%) were surgically treated with a codified surgical regenerative protocol. After 60 months, a peri-implantitis prevalence of 5.94% was reported, with an overall implant success of 94.06%: 95.93%, 92.73%, and 93.10% for 8.0-, 6.0-, and 5.0-mm length implants, respectively (p = 0.55). CONCLUSION: Long-term outcomes suggest that short and ultra-short locking-taper implants can be successfully restored with single crowns in the posterior area of the maxilla and mandible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".