References : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [1]
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Maghaireh H, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(3):CD003878. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003878.pub5.
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. The efficacy of horizontal and vertical bone augmentation procedures for dental implants—a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009;2(3):167–84.
Klein MO, Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):43–54.
Polizzi G, Fabbro S, Furri M, Herrmann I, Squarzoni S. Clinical application of narrow Branemark System implants for single-tooth restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:496–503.
Anitua E, Errazquin JM, de Pedro J, Barrio P, Begona L, Orive G. Clinical evaluation of Tiny 2.5- and 3.0-mm narrow-diameter implants as definitive implants in different clinical situations: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3:315–22.
Maló P, Nobre M. Implants (3.3 mm diameter) for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior regions: a retrospective clinical study with up to 11 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011;13(2):95–103.
Mangano F, Shibli JA, Sammons RL, Veronesi G, Piattelli A, Mangano C. Clinical outcome of narrow-diameter(3.3 mm) locking-taper implants: a prospective study with 1 to 10 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:448–55.
Moraguez O, Vailati F, Grutter L, Sailer I, Belser UC. Fourunit fixed dental prostheses replacing the maxillary incisors supported by two narrow-diameter implants—a five-year case series. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016:1–6. doi:10.1111/clr.12895.
Anitua E, Saracho J, Begoña L, Alkhraisat MH. Long-term follow-up of 2.5-mm narrow-diameter implants supporting a fixed prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(4):769–77.
Anitua E, Tapia R, Luzuriaga F, Orive G. Influence of implant length, diameter, and geometry on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010;30:89–95.
Ortega-Oller I, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Torrecillas-Martínez L, Monje A, Catena A, Wang HL. The influence of implant diameter on its survival: a meta-analysis based on prospective clinical trials. J Periodontol. 2014;85:569–80.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- Background : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [1]
- Background : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [2]
- Methods : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [1]
- Methods : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [2]
- Results : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [1]
- Results : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [2]
- Discussion : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [1]
- Discussion : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [2]
- Conclusions : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- References : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [1]
- References : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study [2]
- Author information : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- Ethics declarations : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- Rights and permissions : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- About this article : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- Table 1 Features of the subjects included in the study : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- Table 2 Dimensions (diameter and length) and final seating torque of the inserted implants (n = 124) : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- Table 3 Comparison of mean bone levels (means ± SD) at different follow-up intervals : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- Table 4 Comparison of mean bone levels (means ± SD) at different follow-up intervals in different implants diameters groups (2.75 and 3.25 mm) : Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) supporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study
- Fig. 1. Characteristics of the implants used in the study: a external macro-design of JDIcon Ultra S, 2.75 mm diameter implant and b external macro-design of JDEvolution S, 3.25 mm diameter implant : Narrow implant
- Fig. 2. Case 1: Example of one case involved in the study. a Preoperative view of a partial edentulism in posterior mandible. b Preoperative CT scan. The width of the ridge was 4 mm. c Four narrow diameter implants were placed and left to a nonsubmerged healing. d Baseline periapical radiograph. e Buccal vieew of the final metal ceramic restoration. f Periapical radiograph at 1 year after loading : Narrow implant
- Fig. 3. Example of another case involved in the study. a Preoperative view –premolars and molars are missing in left mandible. b Preoperative CT scan. The width of the ridge was around 4 mm. c Baseline periapical radiograph. Four narrow diameter implants were placed to restore the area. d Buccal view of the final full-contour zirconia restoration. e Periapical radiograph at 1 year after loading : Narrow implant