Clinical outcomes of short dental implants supporting prostheses in the posterior region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim In clinically challenging scenarios with limited bone height and anatomical restrictions, the use of short implants have been proposed as a potential treatment strategy. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of short implants supporting prostheses in the posterior premolar region of the maxilla and mandible.Materials and methods A total of 30 patients requiring short 6 mm length implant placement in the posterior premolar region were included. Following a period of osseointegration, the implants were restored with either single crowns, fixed bridges or implant-supported removable overdentures. Implant and prosthetic survival with technical complications were recorded.Results In total, 45 implants were placed, with four failures reported before loading in two patients, resulting in a patient implant survival rate of 93.3% over the two-year follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference found between implant failure and arch placement. Prosthetic survival was 100% and minor technical complications recorded were low.Conclusion This study showed that short 6 mm implants could provide a viable treatment option, with high survival rates comparable with alternative bone augmentation procedures. Further research with longer observation periods would be required to validate these current findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".