Clinical evidence

The clinical studies behind our implant entries, indexed with study design, follow-up duration and sample size, plus how we grade evidence strength.

11 studies indexed · 215 sources registered

1. Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

   International Journal of Implant Dentistry, 2024 · Systematic review / meta-analysis · 21 months follow-up · 227 implants

   Reported survival 97.8% (5 failures) at a weighted mean follow-up of 21.4 months

   View study

2. Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review

   International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020 · Systematic review / meta-analysis · 60 months follow-up

   View study

3. Short versus standard-length implants: A systematic review on clinical outcomes and success rates

   Bioinformation, 2025 · Systematic review / meta-analysis · 60 months follow-up

   Reported survival of 91–98% for short implants and 92–99% for standard-length implants, with no statistically significant difference at 3–5 years

   View study

4. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years

   Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012 · Systematic review / meta-analysis · 60 months follow-up

   5-year survival of implants supporting single crowns 97.2% (95% CI 96.3–97.9); 5-year survival of the single crowns themselves 96.3% (95% CI 94.2–97.6)

   View study

5. Clinical Comparison of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

   Healthcare (Basel), 2021 · Systematic review / meta-analysis · 12 months follow-up · 321 implants

   No significant difference in survival at 12 months (95.4% versus 95.0%; p = 0.75)

   View study

6. Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants

   International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2014 · Systematic review / meta-analysis

   Category 3 implants (3.30–3.50 mm) documented across all indications including load-bearing posterior sites; category 2 (3.00–3.25 mm) documented only for single-tooth non-load-bearing sites; category 1 (below 3.0 mm) documented only for the edentulous arch and non-load-bearing single-tooth sites

   View study

7. Zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxilla: an overview of current systematic reviews and meta-analysis

   Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2021 · Systematic review / meta-analysis

   Survival reported across the included reviews ranged from 95.2% to 100% in non-resected maxillae; 78.57% was reported for resected maxillae

   View study

8. The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review

   Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 2017 · Systematic review / meta-analysis · 36 months follow-up · 11743 implants

   Reported implant survival of 99.8% beyond 24 months; the lowest survival reported at 36 months was 97.6%

   View study

9. Clinical Outcomes of Pterygoid and Maxillary Tuberosity Implants: A Systematic Review

   Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2024 · Systematic review / meta-analysis · 61 months follow-up · 3446 implants

   10-year cumulative survival 92.5% for pterygoid implants and 96.9% at 12 years for tuberosity implants, from 38 included studies

   View study

10. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years

    Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012 · Systematic review / meta-analysis · 120 months follow-up

    Implant survival 95.6% at 5 years and 93.1% at 10 years; FDP survival 95.4% at 5 years and 80.1% at 10 years

    View study

11. A Six-Year Prospective Comparative Study of Wide and Standard Diameter Implants in the Maxillary and Mandibular Posterior Area

    Medicina (Kaunas), 2021 · Prospective cohort · 72 months follow-up

    Six-year survival 97.29% for the 6 mm diameter group and 94.87% for the 4 mm diameter group (p > 0.05)

    View study