CONCLUSIONS : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants
CONCLUSIONS
The present study found no significant difference between the clinical performance, including peri‐implant bone level changes and implant survival, of implants with 6 mm and 11 mm lengths, inserted in minimally resorbed edentulous spaces in the posterior maxilla and mandible, during a 5‐year follow‐up period.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Felix L. Guljé: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (lead); Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (equal); Methodology (equal); Project administration (equal); Validation (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing‐original draft (lead). Henny J. A. Meijer: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Methodology (equal); Project administration (equal); Validation (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing‐original draft (equal). Stephen Chen: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (equal); Methodology (supporting); Project administration (equal); Validation (equal); Visualization (equal). Homayoun H Zadeh: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (equal); Methodology (supporting); Project administration (equal); Validation (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing‐review & editing (equal). Paul J. Palmer: Data curation (supporting); Investigation (equal); Project administration (equal); Validation (supporting); Writing‐review & editing (supporting). Ingemar Abrahamsson: Data curation (supporting); Investigation (equal); Project administration (equal); Validation (supporting); Writing‐review & editing (equal). Christopher A. Barwacz: Data curation (supporting); Formal analysis (supporting); Investigation (supporting); Project administration (equal); Validation (equal); and Writing‐review & editing (equal). Clark M. Stanford: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (equal); Project administration (equal); Validation (equal); Writing‐review & editing (equal).
Serial posts:
- Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants in the posterior region
- Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (1)
- Figure 1: patient with two 6‐mm implants
- Figure 1a: Five‐year follow‐up radiograph of patient with two 6‐mm implants
- Figure 1b. Five‐year follow‐up clinical photograph of patient with two 6‐mm implants
- Figure 2. Five‐year follow‐up of patient with two 11‐mm implants
- Figure 2a. Five‐year follow‐up radiograph of patient with two 11‐mm implants
- Figure 2b. Five‐year follow‐up photograph of patient with two 11‐mm implants
- Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (2)
- Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (3)
- Material & methods : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (4)
- Results : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants
- Table 1. Baseline characteristics
- Table 2. Mean value (in mm), standard deviation (SD), and frequency distribution
- Table 3. Clinical measures of implants
- Table 4. Number of technical complications at implant level and patient level
- DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (1)
- DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (2)
- DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (3)
- DISCUSSION : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants (4)
- CONCLUSIONS : Comparison of 6‐mm and 11‐mm dental implants