References : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
Anitua E, Orive G. Short implants in maxillae and mandibles: a retrospective study with 1 to 8 years of follow-up. J Periodontol. 2010;81(6):819–26.
Feldman S, Boitel N, Weng D, Kohles SS, Stach RM. Five-year survival distributions of short-length (10 mm or less) machined-surfaced and Osseotite implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6(1):16–23.
Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Checchi V, Marchetti C, Pellegrino G, Censi P, et al. Vertical bone augmentation versus 7-mm-long implants in posterior atrophic mandibles. Results of a randomised controlled clinical trial of up to 4 months after loading. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009;2(1):7–20.
Misch CE. Short dental implants: a literature review and rationale for use. Dent Today. 2005;24(8):64–6. 8.
Lee SA, Lee CT, Fu MM, Elmisalati W, Chuang SK. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of limited vertical height in the posterior region: short implants (5 to 8 mm) vs longer implants (>8 mm) in vertically augmented sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(5):1085–97.
Mezzomo LA, Miller R, Triches D, Alonso F, Shinkai RS. Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41(2):191–213.
Monje A, Chan HL, Fu JH, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL. Are short dental implants (<10 mm) effective? A meta-analysis on prospective clinical trials. J Periodontol. 2013;84(7):895–904.
Monje A, Fu JH, Chan HL, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Catena A, et al. Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Periodontol. 2013;84(12):1783–91.
Nisand D, Renouard F. Short implant in limited bone volume. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66(1):72–96.
Abbou M. Primary stability and osseointegration: preliminary clinical results with a tapered diminishing-thread implant. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2003;15(2):161–8. quiz 70.
Hall JA, Payne AG, Purton DG, Torr B. A randomized controlled clinical trial of conventional and immediately loaded tapered implants with screw-retained crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19(1):17–9.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- Background : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
- Background : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- Methods : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
- Methods : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- Results : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Discussion : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
- Discussion : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- Conclusions : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Notes : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- References : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [1]
- References : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [2]
- References : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study [3]
- Author information : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Rights and permissions : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- About this article : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Table 1 Patient selection criteria : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Table 2 Outcome success criteria : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study
- Fig. 1. Implant design. The OSPTX and OSP implants are manufactured from high-grade commercially pure titanium with surface roughness produced via a fluoride treatment process. The OSP implant is a screw-shaped self-tapping implant. The diameter used in this study was 4.0 mm. The implant length used in this study was 8 mm. The OSPTX implant has the same features as the OSP except the apex of the implant is tapered : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant
- Fig. 2. ISQ values at placement, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Mean and standard deviation of ISQ values taken at placement, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year is presented. No statistical significant difference was determined between ISQ values at all time points. (p < 0.05) : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant
- Fig. 3. Mean bone loss at 6 months and 1 year. Mean bone loss distribution charts at 6 months and 1 year present no statistically significant difference. p value at 6 months was 0.2981 and at 1 year 0.6613 : Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant