Professional Documents
Culture Documents
David Nisand
on survival rates
Authors’ affiliations: Key words: biomechanical aspects, dental implants, implant diameter, implant length
Franck Renouard, Private Practice, Paris, France
David Nisand, Department of Periodontology,
University of Paris 7, Paris, France Abstract
Introduction: Despite the high success rates of endosseous oral implants, restrictions have
Correspondence to:
Franck Renouard been advocated to their placement with regard to the bone available in height and volume.
Private Practice The use of short or nonstandard-diameter implants could be one way to overcome this
26 Avenue Kléber
limitation.
75116 Paris
France Material and methods: In order to explore the relationship between implant survival rates
e-mail: franck@renouard.net and their length and diameter, a Medline and a hand search was conducted covering the
period 1990–2005. Papers were included which reported: (1) relevant data on implant
length and diameter, (2) implant survival rates; either clearly indicated or calculable from
data in the paper, (3) clearly defined criteria for implant failure, and in which (4) implants
were placed in healed sites and (5) studies were in human subjects.
Results: A total of 53 human studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Concerning implant
length, a relatively high number of published studies (12) indicated an increased failure rate
with short implants which was associated with operators’ learning curves, a routine surgical
preparation (independent of the bone density), the use of machined-surfaced implants, and
the placement in sites with poor bone density. Recent publications (22) reporting an
adapted surgical preparation and the use of textured-surfaced implants have indicated
survival rates of short implants comparable with those obtained with longer
ones.Considering implant diameter, a few publications on wide-diameter implants have
reported an increased failure rate, which was mainly associated with the operators’
learning curves, poor bone density, implant design and site preparation, and the use of a
wide implant when primary stability had not been achieved with a standard-diameter
implant. More recent publications with an adapted surgical preparation, new implant
designs and adequate indications have demonstrated that implant survival rate and
diameter have no relationship.
Discussion: When surgical preparation is related to bone density, textured-surfaced
implants are employed, operators’ surgical skills are developed, and indications for implant
treatment duly considered, the survival rates for short and for wide-diameter implants has
been found to be comparable with those obtained with longer implants and those of a
standard diameter. The use of a short or wide implant may be considered in sites thought
unfavourable for implant success, such as those associated with bone resorption or previous
injury and trauma. While in these situations implant failure rates may be increased,
outcomes should be compared with those associated with advanced surgical procedure
such as bone grafting, sinus lifting, and the transposition of the alveolar nerve.
To cite this article:
Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and
diameter on survival rates.
Clin. Oral Imp. Res. 17 (Suppl. 2), 2006; 35–51
The clinical use of several endosseous oral However, their use may be restricted
r 2006 The Authors
implants designs has become highly pre- where there are limitations imposed by
Journal compilation r Blackwell Munksgaard 2006 dictable in recent decades. the geometry and volume of the alveolar
35
Renouard & Nisand . Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates
bone. These restrictions are more common search, International Journal of Oral and attempt was made to apply a meta-analytic
in the posterior regions of the maxilla and Maxillofacial Implants, Clinical Implant technique.
the mandible. Dentistry and Related Research, Journal
It is generally claimed that the best of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Implant length
treatment in these situations is surgical Periodontology, International Journal of Tables 1a and 1b display the data obtained
modification of the patient’s anatomy by Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry. from the 21 articles which provided infor-
bone grafting techniques, alveolar distrac- A further manual search was conducted mation on implant length. In most of these
tion or inferior alveolar nerve transposition through the bibliographies of all relevant studies (12), a higher failure rate was docu-
to allow the placement of longer and wider papers and review articles. mented for shorter implants (van Steen-
implants. However, the adaptation of the Two examiners reviewed the titles and berghe et al. 1990; Friberg et al. 1991;
implant to the existing anatomy through abstracts according to the inclusion criteria. Jemt 1991; Bahat 1993; Jemt & Lekholm
the use of short and/or narrow- or wide- When necessary, the complete text of the 1995; Wyatt & Zarb 1998; Lekholm et al.
diameter implants should now be consid- article was obtained for further assessment 1999; Bahat 2000; Winkler et al. 2000;
ered as a more appropriate procedure. of inclusions. Full texts of all papers that Naert et al. 2002; Weng et al. 2003; Herr-
In the present review, a ‘short’ implant were considered suitable for inclusion by mann et al. 2005). The worst results with
was defined as a device with a designed the two examiners were then obtained. short implants have been documented by
intra-bony length of 8 mm or less, a ‘wide’ Disagreements between the two examiners Wyatt & Zarb (1998) with an overall sur-
implant as one in which the stated dia- were resolved by discussion. vival rate of 75% for 7-mm-long implants
meter was 4.5 mm or more, and a ‘narrow’ Data extracted from the review were (of the 12 implants placed, three were lost),
implant as one in which this was less than classified as follows: Winkler et al. (2000) with an overall survi-
3.5 mm. val rate of 74.4% for 7-mm-long implants
This review was conducted within the studies dedicated to short-length im- (of the 43 implants placed, 11 were lost)
above parameters and evaluated, through a plants; and Herrmann et al. (2005) with an overall
Medline search, the survival rate of oral studies with data available on length; survival rate of 78.2% for 7-mm-long im-
implants related to their length and dia- studies mainly dedicated to wide-dia- plants (of the 55 implants placed, 12 were
meter. meter implants; lost).
studies dedicated to narrow-diameter However, only a few of these studies
implants; analysed the statistical differences between
Material and methods studies with data available on diameter. short and longer implants (Bahat 1993;
Jemt & Lekholm 1995; Winkler et al.
Studies to be included in this structured 2000; Weng et al. 2003; Herrmann et al.
review had to fulfill the following inclusion 2005). Thus, Winkler et al. (2000) demon-
criteria: (1) relevant data on implant Results strated that shorter implants tended to fail
lengths and diameters, (2) implant survival significantly more often following unco-
rates were either clearly indicated or calcul- The Medline search provided a total of 182 vering and after loading than longer im-
able from data reported in the paper, (3) articles for ‘dental/oral implant’ and plants. Using logistic regression analyses,
criteria for implant failure had been clearly ‘length’, 103 articles for ‘dental/oral im- implant length was found to be a signifi-
defined, (4) implants were placed in healed plant’ and ‘diameter’, 39 articles for ‘den- cant factor for survival over the observation
sites, (5) human-derived data were re- tal/oral implant’ and ‘shape’, and 102 period. In the same way, Weng et al. (2003)
ported. articles for ‘dental/oral implant’ and ‘short reported that 60% of all failed implants
If more than one publication referred to dental implant’ of which 67 were screened were short ( 10 mm), and that the cumu-
the same data, the most recent report was as full text articles. lative success rate for these short implants
used. A total of 53 human studies fulfilled the was significantly lower than the cumula-
No restrictions were placed concerning inclusion criteria and were divided as fol- tive success rate for all implants. In the
study design, and randomized and nonran- lows: 13 articles dedicated to short-length study by Herrmann et al. (2005), a signifi-
domized clinical trials, cohort studies, case implants, 21 articles with data available on cant correlation was demonstrated between
control studies and case reports were all implant length, nine articles mainly dedi- shorter implants and failure rate. In addi-
considered for inclusion in the review. cated to wide-diameter implants, seven tion, comparing the two groups of short
A Medline search was performed to articles dedicated to narrow-diameter im- implants, a significant difference was
identify clinical articles published between plants and eight articles with data available found between the 7- and 10-mm im-
January 1990 and December 2005. The on diameter. plants.
following search terms were used: ‘dental/ The selected articles embodied a wide Moreover, it is of interest to note that
oral implant’ and ‘length’, ‘diameter’, range of approaches to study design, data some of theses studies, although conclud-
‘shape’, and ‘short dental implant’. reporting, definition of terms, implant ing that shorter implants had higher failure
In addition, a manual search of the geometry and surface, methods of statisti- rates than longer ones, still indicated ac-
following journals from 1990 to 2005 was cal analysis, success and survival criteria, ceptable survival rates for the former. As
performed: Clinical Oral Implant Re- and follow-up time. Consequently no such, van Steenberghe et al. (1990)
van Steenberghe 159 (558) (12) (35) 192 97.4z / / 246 93.9z / / / / 120 97.5z / / – – 95.8z
et al. (1990)
Jemt (1991) 384 (2199) 12 11 (62) – – – – – – – – – – 270 94.7zy / / – – 98.1z
Friberg et al. 889 (4641) From stage 0 3848 (implants 99.4 (implants / / / / 793 94.5z / / 94.5 z 99.4z 98.5z
(1991 1 to the 10–20 mm) 10–20 mm) (7 mm only)
connection
of prostheses
Bahat (1993) 213 (732) 5–70 (30.3) 4 – – – – – – / / / / – 90.5zn / / 92.6 z 95.9z 95.2zn
(in bone type (in bone type
II–III)z II–III)
86.7z (in bone 94.5z (in bone
type IV)z type IV)
Jemt & Lekholm 150 (801) (60) 19 (100) 212 – / / 291 – / / / / 298 – / / 75.8n 91.85n 71.2–92.1
(1995)
Buser et al. 1003 (2359) 12–96 63 (127) 26 – 1091 95w 814 93.4w / / 389 91.4w / / 39 – – – 96.7
(1997)
Ellegaard et al. 68 (124) 3–84 – 16 – 21 – 26 – 5k – 56 – / / / / – – 95–100z
(1997)
Wyatt et al. 77 (230) 12–144 (64.9) – 124 95nn / / 93 92 1 100 / / 12 75z / / – – 94z
(1998)
Gunne et al. 23 (69) (120) 3 (9) 3 100 / / 29 86w / / / / 37 89w / / – – 88.4
(1999)
Lekholm et al. 127 (461) (120) 38 (123) 176 91.5zww / / 207 88zzz / / / / 101 93.5zzz / / – – 92.6z
(1999)
Winkler et al. (2917) (36) – 1966 94.3 yyn / / 770 89.1n / / 138 87n 43 74.4n / / – – 93.1z
(2000)
Bahat (2000) 202 (660) 60–144 (97) at 341 – 6 – 210 – 3 – 8 – 84 – 8 – 83zzz 95z 93.4 (at 10
5 years (10–15 mm)zz years)
100 (18–
37 |
20 mm)zz
Brocard et al. 440 (1022) 12–84 (30) 18 – 276 – 480 – / / 232 – / / 16 – 80.3w (8 mm or 83.7w 92.2
(2000) less) (12 mm or (C Success :
more) 83.4%)
Testori et al. 181 (485) (52.6) 16 (39) 306 – 26 – 122 – 24 – / / 7 – – – – – 98.7
(2001)
Naert et al. 660 (1956) (66) 73 (204) 1047 – 15 – 719 – 39 – 19 – 110 – 7 – 81.5z – 91.4
(2002)
Stellingsma 60 (240) (12) 2 (8) 4 short (8 or 11 mm) – – 94.6z
et al. (2003) implants to support an
overdenture in 20
patients with an
extremely resorbed
mandible. One patient
lost to follow-up and
no implant loss.
Weng et al. 493 (1179) (72) (222) 607 / / / 475 91z 70 81z / / 27 74z / / 89 (10 mm 93.1n 91.1 (6 years)
(2003) included) n
Romeo et al. 250 (759) 16–84 (46.2) 49 (82) 49 – 236 – 402 – / / 72 – / / / / – – 96.1 (FPD)
(2004)
Feldman et al. (4891) 24–60 (316 kk) 2547 – 329 – 1447 – 425 – / / 143 – / / Machined 91.6 Machined 93.8n –
Lemmerman
(2005)
n
Significant differences between short and long implant in the same study.
wNo significant difference between short and long implant in the same study.
zOverall survival rate.
yData concerning the maxilla only.
zOnly implants 7 mm length included.
kImplants of 9 mm length.
nnOnly implants 13 mm length included (for implants 15 mm length, the success rate was 98% and 100% for implants 18 and 20 mm length).
wwOnly implants 13 mm length included (absolute survival rate);. Implants 15, 18, and 20 mm length present a 100% absolute survival rate.
zzOnly implants 3.75 mm wide included (absolute survival rate).
yyOnly implants 13 mm length included.
zzOnly implants 3.75 mm wide included (absolute survival rate).
kkIn the short-implant group (no data concerning the number of implant lost to follow-up in the long-implant group).
nnnOnly implants 3 .75 mm wide and 13 mm length were evaluated (wider implants were excluded).
wwwOnly implants 3.75 mm wide were evaluated.
CSR, cumulative survival rate.
Table 1b. Studies on oral implants with information on length available
Authors Type of study Submerged/ Implant type Implant failures
nonsubmerge
Before After Mandible Maxilla Comments
technique
loading loading (%) (%)
(%) (%)
van Steenberghe Prospective multicentre Submerged Machined 87 13 3.5 5 Longer fixtures failed to a lesser extent compared with
et al. (1990) the shorter standard implants (7-, 10-, and 13-mm long)
Jemt (1991) Retrospective study Submerged Machined 66 34 0.4 2.9 The edentulous patients were provided with
Brånemark implants according to routine surgical
protocol. The 7-mm implant failed more often (5.3%)
than any other size of implant in the maxilla. A
corresponding pattern was not found in the mandible
Friberg et al. Retrospective, Submerged Machined 100 / 0.6 (2.7% for 2.9 (6.9% A majority of failures associated with advanced
(1991) multicentre 7 mm implant) for 7 mm) resorption.
Length of the implants may indicate the state of jaw
bone resorption.
No relation between implant length and failures in
partially edentulous patients.
Edentulous patients frequently wore removable
dentures (preloading of implants)
Bahat (1993) Retrospective study Submerged Machined – – – – 7-mm implants had a higher failure rate than those of
all other length. 60% of the failing 7-mm molar
implants were the only implants in that segment of the
jaw
Jemt & Lekholm Retrospective study Submerged Machined – – / 7.9–28.8 Factors of significance for implant failures in patients
(1995) were found to be age, ratio of 7-mm implants and
bone quality
Buser et al. Prospective, multicentre Nonsubmerged TPS 26.5 73.5 5.9 (anterior) 12.2 (anterior) Analysis demonstrated a trend for better results with
(1997) 4.6 (posterior) 13.3 (posterior) increasing implant length
This trend was however not statistically significant
8-mm implants were predominantly inserted in
posterior segment
Ellegaard et al. Retrospective Nonsubmerged (93), TPS (93), – – 7.7 2.7 The length of the implant varied between 8 and 14 mm,
(1997) Submerged (31) TiOblast (31) with 45% being 8 mm. Most implants were placed in
the maxilla in periodontally compromised patients. A
total of three implants had failed. Two were of 8 mm
39 |
implants and one concerned a 10 mm implant
Wyatt et al. Longitudinal study Submerged Machined 50 50 57% (of the 43% (of the The higher failure rate documented for shorter
(1998) failed implants) failed implants) implants (25% failure of the 7-mm implants placed)
compared with longer ones may be related to
compromised placement in restricted anatomic sites.
Alternatively, the effect of the same amount of bone
loss on a short and long implant may result in dramatic
differences in their survival rates
Gunne et al. Longitudinal study Submerged Machined 12.5 87.5 11.6 / Success rates reported in this study were achieved
(1999) despite the use of short implants (54% of the implants
were 7 mm) and the failure rate was similar for 7- and
10-mm implants
Lekholm et al. Prospective multicentre Submerged Machined 47 53 6.3 9.8 According to Cox regression analysis, the only
(1999) relationship between failures and implant
characteristics was seen with regard to implant length,
in that shorter implants failed more often than longer
ones
Table 1b. Continued
40 |
Authors Type of study Submerged/ Implant type Implant failures
nonsubmerge
Before After Mandible Maxilla Comments
technique
loading loading (%) (%)
(%) (%)
Winkler et al. Longitudinal study Submerged Machined and – – – – Shorter implants tended to fail significantly more often
(2000) HA-coated following uncovering and post-loading than longer
implants. Using logistic regression analyses, implant
length was found to be a significant factor for surviving
for the overall period of observation
Bahat (2000) Retrospective study Submerged Machined 37 63 / 6.6 As expected, the longer implants were more likely to
survive than the shorter ones. However, the failure rate
of the 7-mm-long implants was similar to that of longer
ones when the 7-mm implant was not the most distal in
a series
Brocard et al. Longitudinal multicentre Nonsubmerged TPS 19.1 80.9 – – The implants were divided into three groups according
Four multicentre study (Lekholm et al. 1994, Henry et al. 1996, Jemt et al. 1996, Friberg et al. 1997) reporting on one specific implant design constituted the basis for the research.
rate of 95.5% (of the 270 implants placed,
12 were lost). Lekholm et al. (1999) in a
10-year prospective multicenter study re-
ported an overall survival rate of 93.5%
for 7-mm-long implants compared with
91.5% for 13-mm-long implants.
In some of these studies, the failure rates
of short implants were similar to those of
longer ones. This finding applied to 7-mm-
long implants placed in partially dentate
patients (Friberg et al. 1991), 7-mm-long
implants placed in the mandible (Jemt
1991), and when the 7-mm implant was
not the most distal in a series (Bahat 2000).
6.2
Machined (348)
Submerged
93.8%, respectively).
Herrmann et al. Research databasen
(2005)
(2005)
94 (n ¼ 97%)
et al. 1995; Texeira et al. 1997; Stellingsma
et al. 2000; Tawill & Younan 2003; Nedir
95.1n
94.5z 95.8z 95.8
99.1 99.4
94.6
CSR
(%)
100
100
100
99n
et al. 2004).
94
88
Although Ten Bruggenkate et al. (1998)
98.4
99.5
92.3
CSR
(%)
100
100
Md
94
88
95.1 /
94.6 /
be used in combination with longer ones,
(%)
100
100
100
100
six of the above studies, reported the use of
Mx
100 /
/
/
100 /
short implants alone. Moreover, some of
100
100
Md
62
47
%
–
100 /
100 /
100 /
short implants to support single crowns
Mx
35
39.7 27.5 38
53
%
–
/
/
/
/
2004; Griffin & Cheung 2004).
100
RD
%
8
81.1 /
/
/
87.7 /
23.8 /
/
93.2 /
84.4 /
surfaced implants, two either machined or
(mm) Single FPD
64
92
17
%
/
crown
12.3
32.4
76.2
15.6
100
9.6
6.8
33
83
%5 Mean %
8.25
6.95
7.66
8.42
9.1
6.9
8.1
7.9
wWhen the survival rate of 10-mm implants was compared with those of the shorter implants, no statistical difference was found.
machined and textured-surfaced implants
6
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ 10.5
100
%6
5.9
1.1
6
5
/
19.1 45.6 /
/
/
23.9
%7
/
/
cant.
10.1
18.4
81.6
%8.5 %8
/
/
/
/
94.5
65.6
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
14.1
Patient %410 %10 %9
3.9
1.5
/
/
/
/
56.8
36.7
55
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
15 (46)
21 (31)
lost to
4 (4)
(28)
21
0
0
0
–
–
9–68 (34.9)
24–48 (37.6)
12–168 (96)
0–84
12–84
12–92
12–84
(39.1)
48 (100)
126 (253)
49 (260)
(269)
(528)
(168)
(979)
(311)
17 (68)
(26)
(48)
(96)
85
167
979
188
70.6% (12I)
100% (1I)
43% (3I)
50% (6I)
40% (4I)
100% (3I)
12.5% (1I)
30% (3I)
40% (2I)
66.7% (2I)
crestal bone loss in 3%. Stellingsma et al.
loading
Failure
(2000) claimed that no severe bone loss was
after
detected after a mean following time of 77
/
/
/
months. Deporter et al. (2001) found no
statistically significant change in the mean
70% (10I)
crestal bone level from baseline to the end
57% (4I)
50% (6I)
60% (6I)
87.5% (7I)
60% (3I)
29.4% (5I)
33.3% (1I)
of the observation time. Friberg et al.
loading
Failure
before
/
/
/
tion and losses of 0.7 0.8 and
0.9 0.6 mm after 5 and 10 years, respec-
Short implant
implant (%)
55.2
22.6
–
–
–
/
/
/
/
of function.
It is of interest to note that no specific
44.8
77.4
100
100
100
100
100
–
–
–
HA coated
Machined
Machined
TPS
Submerged and
Submerged and
Nonsubmerged
Nonsubmerged
Nonsubmerged
Nonsubmerged
Nonsubmerged
nonsubmerged
Nonsubmerge
rate of 95.9%.
Submerged/
Submerged
Submerged
Submerged
Submerged
Submerged
Retrospective,
Retrospective,
Implant diameter
Type of study
Retrospective
Retrospective
Retrospective
Retrospective
Retrospective
Retrospective
Table 2b. Studies dedicated to short implants
multicentre
multicentre
multicentre
Prospective
Prospective
Prospective
Prospective
44 |
study nonsubmerged type (N implants) in months lost to (all )
N CSR N CSR N CSR
techniques (mean) follow- (%)
(%) (%) (%)
up (I)
Bahat & Case studies Submerged Machined 90 (133) 14–37 – / / 133 97.7w / / 97.7w The failure rate for all of the 5-mm implants
Handelsman (paired and unpaired) was 2.3%. The failure
(1996) rate for all double implants (any size) was
1.6%
Aparicio & Orozco Retrospective Submerged Machined 45 (185) 16–55 (32.9) 3 (8) / / 94 97.2 (Mx) / / – The reason for larger failure rate in the
(1998) 83.4 (Md) mandible for posterior 5-mm implants is not
known. The mean bone loss after 48 months
was 0.97 mm
Renouard et al. Retrospective Submerged Machined 74 (98) (12) 0 / / 98 91.8 w / / 91.8w Bone loss around wide diameter implants
(1999) without a smooth collar is comparable to
that reported around standard-diameter
implants. Bone loss that occurred before
second stage surgery was observed primarily
reviewed.
No relationship was noted between shorter
implants and higher failure rates
Krennmair & Retrospective Submerged – 114 (121) 12–114 (41.8) 0 121 98.3 / / / / 98.3 In 58 of 74 maxillary implants, a sinus lift
Waldenberger (5.5 mm) procedure was performed. Only two
(2004) maxillary implants lost osseintegration
Shin et al. (2004) Retrospective Submerged Machined 82 (128) 12–84 7 / / 64 80.9%n / / – Although, the wide implant suffered a
significantly lower success rate compared
with the standard diameter (87.5% for the
4 mm-wide and 98.2%n for the 3.75 mm-wide
diameter) implant, the 5-mm-diameter WP
implants had a much lower CSR of 73.7%
compared with an overall CSR of 100%
among the 5-mm RP implants
Hultin-Mordenfeld Retrospective Submerged Machined 58 (78) 11–58 (33) 6 / / 78 89.8w / / 89.8 w Better results were seen in the mandible
et al. (2004) (94.5%) compared with the maxilla (78.3%).
All failures occurred within 2 years of the
first surgery. The short group (7 and 8.5 mm-
length) demonstrated significantly more
failures than the long group
Anner et al. Case series Submerged HA-coated 43 (45) 1–54 (23.4) 1 (1) 45 100w / / / / 100w In the present study, only one implant
(2005) (6 mm) presented crestal bone loss beyond the first
thread at the end of the observation period
n
Significant differences in the same study.
wOverall survival rate.
CSR, cumulative survival rate; Mx, maxillae; Md, mandible.
Table 3b. Studies on narrow-diameter implant
Type of study Submerged/ Implants N patients Follow-up Patients 3.3 3 CSR Comments
nonsubmerged type (N implants) in months lost to (all )
N CSR (%) N CSR (%)
techniques (mean) follow-up (I) (%)
Polizzi et al. Retrospective Submerged Machined 21 (30) 36–89 (63) 0 / / 30 93.3 93.3 One failure occurred after about 66
(1999) and prospective months of function. Thus, the results
show a cumulative survival rate of 93.3%
and an overall survival rate of 96.7%
Vigolo & Givani Retrospective Submerged Machined 44 ( 52) (60) 0 / / 52 (2.9 mm) 94.2n 94.2n During the 5-year period of this study,
(2000) two implants failed at the second surgical
phase
Hallman (2001) Prospective Nonsubmerged TPS 40 (182) (12) 0 160 – / / 99.4n Of the 160 narrow implants, one failure
was registered. After 1 year of loading,
the marginal bone resorption
demonstrated a mean of 0.35 mm.12% of
the placed implants were 8-mm length
(one lost)
Andersen et al. Prospective Submerged Machined 28 (32) (36) 3 (3) 28 (3.25 mm) 93.8 / / – 27 patients received 28 standard-
(2001) diameter implants and 28 patients
received 32 narrow-diameter implants
with 100% and 93.8% of CSR
respectively. 2 narrow-diameter implants
were lost after 6 months but no others
failures were subsequently observed in
any of the groups. In both groups,
marginal bone loss was recorded to be a
mean of 0.4 mm.The CSR in the 2 groups
were equal despite 2 implants were lost
in the narrow-diameter group
Zinsli et al. Prospective Nonsubmerged TPS 154 (298) 12–120 1 (2) 298 96.6 / / 96.6 Three implants were lost during the
(2004) healing phase. Two implant body
fractures were observed. 60 implants
have an 8-mm length (Only one was lost
due to fracture. The 5-year CSR was
98.7% and the 6-year CSR was 96.6%
45 |
Vigolo et al. Retrospective Submerged Machined 165 (192) (84) 0 92 (3.25 mm) – 100 (2.9 mm) – 95.3n No differences between the 2.9-mm and
(2004) 3.25-mm implants, between small
diameter implants used for single-unit
restorations and those included in
multiple-implant restorations were
detected. 67.2% of the implants
presented a marginal bone loss between
0.6-to 1-mm at 7 years
Comfort et al. Prospective Submerged Machined 9 (23) (60) 0 23 96n / / 96n One implant failed at abutment
(2005) connection. The mean marginal bone loss
during the first year was 0.41 mm and
between the 2nd and the 5th year,
0.03 mm
n
Overall survival rate.
CSR, cumulative survival rate; TPS, titanium plasma-sprayed.
46 |
Type of study Submerged/ Implants type N patients Follow-up Patients 5þ 5 4þ 4 3.75 3þ CSR Comments
nonsubmerged (N implants) in months lost to (all )
N CSR N CSR N CSR N CSR N CSR N CSR
techniques (mean) follow- (%)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
up (I)
Ivanoff et al. Retrospective Submerged Machined 67 (229) (36–60) 17y / / 97 86.3 (Mx) / / 61 100 (Mx) 141 95.1 (Mx) / / 91w Seven of the 141 implants in the 3.75-mm-diameter
(1999)z 73 (Md) 84.8 (Md) 94.7 (Md) group failed (5%), 2 of 61 in the 4-mm-diameter
group (3%) and 17 of 97 (18%) in the 5-mm-
diameter group. No relationship between the
marginal bone loss and implant diameter was seen
during the first year of loading. Shorter implants
showed higher failure rates, specifically within the
5-mm group (20%). In the 3.75 and 4-mm group,
three of the 47 short implants failed
Lekholm et al. Prospective Submerged Machined 127 (461) (120) 38 (123) / / / / / / 26 100 435 92.2w / / 92.6w Shorter standard-diameter implants were lost more
(1999) multicentre often than longer ones, whereas no wider-diameter
implants whatsoever were lost
n
Significant differences in the same study.
wOverall survival rate.
zForty-five percent of these implants were used for rescue purposes (when the standard ones were not considered suitable or did not reach initial stability).
yBased on clinical follow-up. Based on radiographic examination, 48 patients dropped out.
zImplant placement in bone of poor texture was executed utilizing an adapted bone site preparation technique.
FPD, fixed partial denture; CSR, cumulative survival rate; Mx, maxillae; Md, mandible; SLA, sandblasted and acid-etched; TPS, titanium plasma-sprayed.
Renouard & Nisand . Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates
and 98.2% for 3.75 mm diameter im- only two studies indicated a relationship A second group, although concluding
plants). between implant failure and implant dia- that failure rates increased with short im-
In two of the studies, survival rates were meter. Ivanoff et al. (1999) reported failure plants, still provided adequate survival
dependent on the location of the implant. rates of 5%, 3%, and 18% for 3.75-, 4-, and rates (van Steenberghe et al. 1990; Friberg
Hultin-Mordenfeld et al. (2004) reported a 5-mm-diameter implants, respectively. et al. 1991; Jemt 1991; Lekholm et al.
higher implant failure rate with wide-dia- The lowest cumulative survival rates 1999).
meter implants but better results in the were seen with 4- and 5-mm-diameter A third group of articles reported that
mandible (94.5%) than the maxilla implants placed in the mandible (84.8% implant length did not appear to signifi-
(78.3%). Aparicio & Orozco (1998) re- and 73%, respectively). On the other hand, cantly influence the survival rate (Buser et
ported a cumulative survival rate of Winkler et al. (2000) have reported that the al. 1997; Ellegaard et al. 1997; Gunne et al.
97.2% for wide-diameter implants in the percentage failure for implants with dia- 1999; Brocard et al. 2000; Testori et al.
maxilla and 83.4% in the mandible. meters 43 mm was higher at each stage as 2001; Stellingsma et al. 2003; Feldman
The remaining five studies indicated compared with those 44 mm (the differ- et al. 2004; Romeo et al. 2004; Lemmer-
survival rates within the limits of clinical ences in survival for the two groups were man & Lemmerman 2005).
acceptance. As such, 528 implants with statistically significant). Finally, a group of articles which focused
diameters from 4.7–6 mm were placed in In the remaining six studies implant specifically on short implants indicated
392 patients, with a follow-up times of 12– failure did not appear to be significantly that these provided similar outcomes to
114 months (mean follow-up for the four influenced by the diameter (Lekholm et al. those reported for longer implants, with
studies providing this data was 23.5 1999; Bahat 2000; Friberg et al. 2002; survival rates of 88–100% (Bernard et al.
months). The mean number of patients Garlini et al. 2003; Romeo et al. 2004; 1995; Texeira et al. 1997; Ten Bruggenkate
lost to follow-up was 3% for the four Lemmerman & Lemmerman 2005). As et al. 1998; Deporter et al. 2000, 2001;
studies providing this data, with a mean such, in the study by Friberg et al. (2002) Friberg et al. 2000; Stellingsma et al. 2000;
survival rate of 95.6% (91.8–100%). the failure rates were 5.5%, 3.9%, and Tawill & Younan 2003; Fugazzotto et al.
Bone loss around wide-diameter im- 4.5% for 3.75-, 4-, and 5-mm-diameter 2004; Griffin & Cheung 2004; Nedir et al.
plants was comparable with that reported implants, respectively. 2004; Goené et al. 2005; Renouard &
around standard-diameter implants in most No relationship between marginal bone Nisand 2005).
of the studies, and no specific failure pat- loss and implant diameter was seen in There were many differences in the de-
tern could be observed. most of the studies, which reported rather finition of a short implant used in these 34
Table 3b displays the data provided by low changes in crestal bone levels. selected articles (Table 2a). These differ-
the seven articles, which are mainly de- ences must be considered for an adequate
voted to narrow-diameter implants. All the evaluation and comparison between the
studies included in this structured review Discussion studies.
have reported low failure rates with the use With respect to this structured review, it
of narrow-diameter implants. This structured review has identified 13 may be appropriated to define a short im-
Bone loss around narrow-diameter im- articles dedicated to short implants, 21 plant as a device with a designed intra-bony
plants was within the same limits as those with data available on implant length, length of 8 mm or less.
reported around standard-diameter im- nine mainly dedicated to wide-diameter In an attempt to understand such differ-
plants in most of the studies, and no implants, seven dealing solely with nar- ences in terms of survival rates among the
specific pattern could be drawn concerning row-diameter implants and eight with data selected studies, several factors have been
the time of failures. available on diameter. suggested: the implant primary stability,
In the study by Vigolo et al. (2004), no It should be noted, when considering the the practitioner’s learning curve, the
differences were found between the 2.9 and outcome of this structured review, that the implant surface, and the quality of the
3.25-mm implants, and between small level of evidence was somewhat weak. As patient’s bone.
diameter implants used for single-unit re- such the highest level of evidence (rando- First, it is of interest to note that some of
storations and those included in multiple- mized controlled study) has not been the studies which displayed lower survival
implant restorations. reached in the present analysis. rates with short implants used a routine
All together these articles involved 461 surgical protocol independent of the bone
patients restored with 809 narrow-dia- Implant length density (Jemt & Lekholm 1995;Wyatt
meter implants, with follow-up periods In the light of this literature review, four & Zarb 1998; Naert et al. 2002). With
ranging from 12 to 120 months (mean main subgroups of outcomes may be high- such a standard surgical protocol, which
follow-up for the six studies providing this lighted. frequently used a tapping procedure, pri-
data was 52.5 months), a mean percentage Some articles showed clearly that short mary stability of the freshly inserted im-
of patients lost to follow-up of 1.6%, and a implants failed more often than longer ones plant may have been reduced.
mean survival rate of 95.5% (93.3–99.4%). (Bahat 1993; Jemt & Lekholm 1995; Wyatt More recent publications dedicated to
Table 3c displays the data obtained from & Zarb 1998; Bahat 2000; Winkler et al. short implants have emphasized the use
the eight articles, which provided informa- 2000; Naert et al. 2002; Weng et al. 2003; of an adapted surgical protocol in order to
tion on implant diameter. Among them, Herrmann et al. 2005). obtain adequate primary stability. As such,
Tawill & Younan (2003) indicated that the Brocard et al. 2000; Testori et al. 2001; shapes A, B, and C and bone qualities of 1,
preparation of the surgical site was altered Feldman et al. 2004; Romeo et al. 2004) 2, and 3) had a failure rate of 7.3% com-
to ensure greater primary stability in sites were performed with textured-surfaced im- pared with 3% for longer implants. For
of poor bone density. In the same way, plants. One of the remaining studies (Lem- combination II (jaw shapes D and E and
Fugazzotto et al. (2004) did not use the merman & Lemmerman 2005) used bone qualities of 1, 2, and 3) and IV (jaw
countersink for implant placement and mainly textured-surfaced implants. In the shapes D and E and bone density 4), the
Renouard & Nisand (2005) reported the same way, out of the 13 studies devoted to corresponding figures were 13% (short im-
use of an adapted surgical protocol to en- short implants, nine used textured-surfaced plants) and 0% (long implants), and 78%
hance initial implant stability. implants and two used either machined or (short implants) and 0% (long implants).
Moreover, the operators’ learning curves textured-surfaced implants. Obviously, in combinations II and IV,
have been proposed as a reason for the In an attempt to compare the 5-year only seven long implants have been placed
different reported outcomes with short im- survival rate of short machined-surfaced in comparison with 55 short implants.
plants between the studies. and short dual-acid-etched surfaced im- It must be noted that in such sites with
In the investigation by Stellingsma et al. plants, Feldman et al. (2004) demonstrated poor bone density and volume, short im-
(2000), 17 patients were each treated with survival rates of 91.6% and 97.7%, respec- plants should not be compared with long
four short (8–10 mm) implants placed in tively. In this study a statistically signifi- implants placed in good bone density, but
the mandibular interforaminal region, and cant difference in cumulative survival rate with the advanced surgical procedures
restored with an overdenture. This study was found between short machined-sur- which would be required to allow the
reported an 88% cumulative survival rate faced implants and standard machined-sur- placement of longer implants.
after a mean follow-up period of 77 faced implants. It is noteworthy that this Hence, the 96% cumulative survival
months. difference increased dramatically in the rate obtained in poor bone density by Feld-
In 2003, the same team, in a study posterior maxilla. For the dual-acid-etched man et al. (2004), or the 94.6% obtained by
comparing three modalities of treatment, implants, no statistically significant differ- Renouard and Nisand (2005) in the treat-
included a group of 20 patients who were ences were demonstrated between short- ment of severely resorbed maxilla should
treated with the same protocol as the one and standard-length implants. When com- not be compared with the outcomes of
used in the previous study. This more paring, the cumulative survival rates in long implant placed in adequate bone
recent publication reported a 100% cumu- poor bone density, Feldman et al. (2004) density. Rather, it should be compared
lative survival rate after 12 months follow- demonstrated that short dual-acid-etched with the overall survival rate of 91.5%
up. It could be argued that this reflects the implants provided better outcomes than reported by Del Fabbro et al. (2004) in a
difference in the follow-up time between machined-surfaced implants (96% and systematic review of implants placed in the
the two studies, but it should be noted that 86.5%, respectively). grafted maxillary sinus, or the implant
in the first study 87.5% of the failed im- Additionally, Renouard & Nisand (2005) survival rate of 75.1% reported by Becktor
plants were lost before loading. have demonstrated a trend for better results et al. (2004) in the grafted edentulous
Hence, it is noteworthy that articles with the use of oxidized implants compared maxilla.
dedicated to short implants published with machined-surfaced implants. How- Besides survival rates, when comparing
from 2003 to 2005 have reported survival ever, the difference of 5% was not statisti- the outcomes of short implants with ad-
rates ranging from 94.6–99.4%. cally significant. vanced surgical therapy, morbidity must be
With regards to the variations between Finally, short implants have been routi- evaluated as well in order to allow an
studies in the outcomes of treatment with nely placed in anatomical sites with lim- adequate comparison. It should be noted
short implants, these may be explained by ited bone volume (Wyatt & Zarb 1998). that neurosensory disturbances were ex-
differences in implant surfaces properties. When the relationship between implant perienced by 21% of the cases treated by
Out of the 12 studies which have docu- length and available jaw bone were exam- inferior alveolar nerve transposition (Fer-
mented an increased failure rate with short ined, Herrmann et al. (2005) found that rigno et al. 2005), that post-operative com-
implants, 11 used of machined-surfaced 29.4% of the 7-mm implants were placed plications specifically related to sinus graft
implants (van Steenberghe et al. 1990; in jaws with jaw shape E and 25.5% were procedures affected 10% of patients
Friberg et al. 1991; Jemt 1991; Bahat placed in jaw with jaw shape D, according (Schwartz-Arad et al. 2004), and that com-
1993; Jemt & Lekholm 1995;Wyatt & to Lekholm and Zarb’s classification. plications associated with the distraction
Zarb 1998; Lekholm et al. 1999; Bahat As suggested by Friberg et al. (1991), jaw procedure affected 75.7% of patients
2000; Naert et al. 2002; Weng et al. shape and bone density must be considered (Enislidis et al. 2005).
2003; Herrmann et al. 2005). The remain- as the most influential factors in implant
ing study (Winkler et al. 2000) used survival. It should be understood that the Implant diameter
both machined-surfaced and HA-coated length of the implant, in most of the When considering narrow-diameter im-
implants. studies reflects the state of jaw bone plants, it should be noted that all the
In the other hand, out of the nine studies resorption. studies included in this structured review
which have indicated that implant length In the study by Herrmann et al. (2005), have reported low failure rates. These fig-
did not influence the survival rate, six short implants placed in combination I ures could be explained by adapted and
(Buser et al. 1997; Ellegaard et al. 1997; bone (consisting of implants placed in jaw atraumatic preparation techniques, and
the careful patient selection in terms of (Ivanoff et al. 1999; Eckert et al. 2001; Shin More recent studies which have used
biomechanical conditions and bone et al. 2004). surgical preparation adapted to the bone
density. As such, narrow-diameter im- In most of the recent studies, however, density, textured-surfaced implants, and
plants would probably have been consid- no relationship has been found between modified case selection have reported sur-
ered in clinical situations in which space- wide-diameter implants and survival rates. vival rates for short implants and for wide-
related difficulties or bone availability did This may possibly reflect the use of newer diameter implants which were comparable
not allow the use of standard-diameter implant designs, more appropriate case with those obtained with long-implants
implants. selection and the use of an adapted surgical and standard-diameter implants.
However, further studies are needed in technique. In sites associated with poor bone den-
order to clearly define the limits of narrow- sity and jaw bone resorption, a prevalence
diameter implants with regards to clinical of short implants and/or wide-diameter
indications, load-bearing capacity and long- Conclusions implants might be used. In these particular
term fate. situations, failure rates may be increased,
In the study by Ivanoff et al. (1999), it This structured review has demonstrated a but should then be compared with the
was suggested that the increased failure trend for an increase failure rate with short failure rates and morbidity of advanced
rate of 5-mm-diameter implants was asso- implants and wide-diameter implants. surgical procedures such as bone grafting,
ciated with the operators’ learning curves, The highest failure rates for short im- sinus lifting, and alveolar nerve transposi-
poor bone density (5-mm-diameter im- plants were reported in older studies, which tioning. Thus both survival rates and mor-
plants were used as a ‘rescue’ implant in were performed with routine surgical pro- bidity must be considered when comparing
45% of implant sites), implant design, and cedures independently of the bone quality, the outcomes of short implants and ad-
the use of this implant diameter when with machined-surfaced implants and in vanced surgical procedures to allow ade-
primary stability could not be achieved restricted anatomic sites with poor bone quate comparisons.
with a standard-diameter implant. This density. It must be noted that the levels of evi-
view was supported by the study of Hul- The increased failure rates of wide- dence provided by the literature are rather
tin-Mordenfeld et al. (2004) in which wide- diameter implants reported in some low, and that further research with higher
diameter implants were placed in unfa- studies have been mainly associated with level (randomized controlled studies),
vourable situations such as poor bone den- operators’ learning curves, poor bone den- should be performed in order to investigate
sity, and compromised bone volume. As sity, implant designs and site preparation, the relationships between bone density,
such, in some studies a trend could be and the use of this diameter as a ‘rescue’ implant length and diameter, and survival
drawn with a prevalence of early failures implant. rates.
References
Andersen, E., Saxegaard, E., Mork Knutsen, B. & Becktor, J.P., Isaksson, S. & Sennerby, L. (2004) small diameter screw-shaped oral implants. Jour-
Haanaes, H.R. (2001) A prospective clinical study Survival analysis of endosseous implants in nal of Oral Rehabilitation 32: 341–345.
evaluating the safety and effectiveness of narrow- grafted and nongrafted edentulous maxillae. Inter- Del Fabbro, M., Testori, T., Francetti, L. & Wein-
diameter threaded implants in the anterior region national Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Im- stein, R. (2004) Systematic review of survival
of the maxilla. International Journal of Oral & plants 19: 107–115. rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary
Maxillofacial Implants 16: 217–224. Bernard, J.P., Belser, U., Szmuckler, S., Martinet, sinus. International Journal of Periodontics and
Anner, R., Better, H. & Chaushu, G. (2005) The J.P., Attieh, A. & Saad, P.J. (1995) Intérêt de Restorative Dentistry 24: 565–577.
clinical effectiveness of 6 mm diameter implants. l’utilisation d’implants ITI de faible longueur Deporter, D.A., Pilliar, R.M., Todescan, R., Watson,
Journal of Periodontology 76: 1013–1015. dans les secteurs postérieurs: résultats d’une étude P. & Pharoah, M. (2001) Managing the posterior
Aparicio, C. & Orozco, P. (1998) Use of 5-mm- clinique à 3ans. Médecine Buccale, Chirurgie mandible of partially edentulous patients with
s
diameter implants: periotest values related to a Buccale 1: 1–18. short, porous-surfaced dental implants: early
clinical and radiographic evaluation. Clinical Oral Brocard, D., Barthet, P., Baysse, E., Duffort, J.F., data from a clinical trial. International Journal of
Implant Research 9: 398–406. Eller, P., Justumus, P., Marin, P., Oscaby, F., Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 16: 653–658.
Bahat, O. (1993) Treatment planning and placement Simonet, T., Benqué, E. & Brunel, G. (2000) A Deporter, D.A., Todescan, R. & Caudry, S. (2000)
of dental implants in the posterior maxillae: report multicenter report on 1022 consecutively placed Simplifying management of the posterior maxilla
of 732 consecutive Nobelpharma implants. Inter- ITI implants: a 7-year longitudinal study. Inter- using short, porous-surfaced dental implants and
national Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial national Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Im- simultaneous indirect sinus elevation. Interna-
Implants 8: 151–161. plants 15: 691–700. tional Journal of Periodontics and Restorative
Bahat, O. (2000) Brånemark system implants in Buser, D., Mericske-Stern, R., Bernard, J.P., Beh- Dentistry 20: 477–485.
the posterior maxilla: clinical study of 660 im- neke, A., Behneke, N., Hirt, H.P., Belser, U. & Eckert, S.E., Meraw, S.J., Weaver, A.L. & Lohse,
plants followed for 5 to 12 years. International Lang, N.P. (1997) Long-term evaluation of non- C.M. (2001) Early experience with wide-platform
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 15: submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table MKII implants. Part I: implant survival. Part II:
646–653. analysis of a prospective multicenter study with evaluation of risk factors involving implant survi-
Bahat, O. & Handelsman, M. (1996) Use of wide 2359 implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research val. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial
implants and double implants in the posterior jaw: 8: 161–172. Implants 16: 208–216.
a clinical report. International Journal of Oral & Comfort, M.B., Chu, F.C.S., Chai, J., Wat, P.Y.P. & Ellegaard, B., Baelum, V. & Karring, T. (1997)
Maxillofacial Implants 8: 379–386. Chow, T.W. (2005) A 5-year prospective study on Implant therapy in periodontally compromised
patients. Clinical Oral Implant Research 8: 180– loading. International Journal of Oral & Max- theses, 199–211. Chicago: Quintessence Publish-
188. illofacial Implants 16: 731–736. ing Co.
Enislidis, G., Fock, N., Millesi-Schobel, G., Klug, Henry, P.J., Laney, W.R., Jemt, T., Harris, D., Lemmerman, K.J. & Lemmerman, N.E. (2005)
C., Wittwer, G., Yerit, K. & Ewers, R. (2005) Krogh, P.H., Polizzi, G., Zarb, G.A. & Herrmann, Osseointegrated dental implants in private prac-
Analysis of complications following alveolar dis- I. (1996) Osseointergrated implants for single- tice: a long-term case series study. Journal of
traction osteogenesis and implant placement in tooth replacement: a prospective 5-year multi- Periodontology 76: 310–319.
the partially edentulous mandible. Oral Surgery, center study. International Journal of Oral & Naert, I., Koutsikakis, G., Quirynen, M., Jacobs, R.
Oral Medecine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, Maxillofacial Implants 11: 450–455. & van Steenberghe, D. (2002) Biologic outcome of
Endodontology 100: 25–30. Herrmann, I., Lekholm, U., Holm, S. & Kultje, C. implant-supported restorations in the treatment of
Feldman, S., Boitel, N., Weng, D., Kohles, S.S. & (2005) Evaluation of patient and implant charac- partial edentulism. Part I: a longitudinal clinical
Stach, R.M. (2004) Five-year survival distribu- teristics as potential prognostic factors for oral evaluation. Clinical Oral Implants Research 13:
tions of short-length (10 mm or less) machined- implant failures. International Journal of Oral 381–389.
surfaced and Osseotite implants. Clinical Implant & Maxillofacial Implants 20: 220–230. Nedir, R., Bishof, M., Briaux, J.M., Beyer, S.,
Dentistry & Related Research 6: 16–23. Hultin-Mordenfeld, M., Johansson, A., Hedin, M., Szmukler-Moncler, S. & Bernard, J.P. (2004) A
Ferrigno, N., Laureti, M. & Fanali, S. (2005) Inferior Billström, C. & Arvidson, K. (2004) A retrospec- 7-year life table analysis from a prospective study
alveolar nerve transposition in conjunction with tive clinical study of wide-diameter implants used on ITI implants with special emphasis on the use
implant placement. International Journal of Oral in posterior edentulous areas. International Jour- of short implants. Result from a private practice.
& Maxillofacial Implants 20: 610–620. nal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 19: Clinical Oral Implants Research 15: 150–157.
Friberg, B., Ekestubbe, A. & Sennerby, L. (2002) 387–392. Polizzi, G., Fabbro, S., Furri, M., Herrmann, I. &
Clinical outcome of Brånemark system implants Ivanoff, C.J., Gröndahl, K., Sennerby, L., Bergstrom, Squarzoni, S. (1999) Clinical application of nar-
of various diameters: a retrospective study. Inter- C. & Lekholm, U. (1999) Influence of variations row Brånemark system implant for single-tooth
national Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial in implant diameters: a 3- to 5-years retrospective restorations. International Journal of Oral &
Implants 17: 671–677. clinical report. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 14: 496–503.
Friberg, B., Gröndahl, K., Lekholm, U. & Bråne- Maxillofacial Implants 14: 173–180. Renouard, F., Arnoux, J.P. & Sarment, D.P. (1999)
mark, P.I. (2000) Long-term follow-up of severely Jemt, T. (1991) Failures and complications in 391 Five-mm-diameter implants without a smooth
atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported surface collar: report on 98 consecutive place-
short Brånemark implants. Clinical Implant by Brånemark implant in edentulous jaws: a study ments. International Journal of Oral & Maxillo-
Dentistry & Related Research 2: 184–189. of treatment from the time of prosthesis place- facial Implants 14: 101–107.
Friberg, B., Jemt, T. & Lekholm, U. (1991) Early ment to the first annual checkup. International Renouard, F. & Nisand, D. (2005) Short implants in
failure in 4641 consecutively placed Brånemark Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 6: the severely resorbed maxilla: a 2-year retrospec-
dental implants: a study from stage 1 to the 270–276. tive clinical study. Clinical Implant Dentistry &
connection of completed prostheses. International Jemt, T., Chai, J., Harnett, J., Heath, M.R., Hutton, Related Research 7 (Suppl 1): 104–110.
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 6: J.E., Johns, R.B., Mc Kenna, S., Mc Namara, Romeo, E., Lops, D., Margutti, E., Ghisolfi, M.,
142–146. D.C., van Steenberghe, D., Taylor, R., Watson, Chiapasco, M. & Vogel, G. (2004) Long-term
Friberg, B., Nilson, H., Olsson, M. & Palmquist, C. R.M. & Herrmann, I. (1996) A 5-year prospective survival and success of oral implants in the treat-
(1997) MKII: the self-tapping Brånemark implant: multicenter follow-up report on overdentures sup- ment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospec-
5-year results of a prospective 3-center study. ported by osseointegrated implants. International tive study with the ITI dental implant system.
Clinical Oral Implants Research 8: 279–285. Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 11: International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial
Fugazzotto, P.A., Beagle, J.R., Ganeles, J., Jaffin, R., 291–298. Implants 19: 247–259.
Vlassis, J. & Kumar, A. (2004) Success and failure Jemt, T. & Lekholm, U. (1995) Implant treatment Schwartz-Arad, D., Herzberg, R. & Dolev, E. (2004)
rates of 9 mm or shorter implants in the replace- in edentulous maxillae: a 5-year follow-up report The prevalence of surgical complications of the
ment of missing maxillary molars when restored on patients with different degrees of jaw resorp- sinus graft procedure and their impact on implant
with individual crowns: preliminary results 0 to tion. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofa- survival. Journal of Periodontology 75: 511–516.
84 months in function. A retrospective study. cial Implants 10: 303–311. Shin, S.W., Bryant, S.R. & Zarb, G.A. (2004) A
Journal of Periodontology 75: 327–332. Khayat, P.G., Habre Hallage, P.G. & Toledo, R.A. retrospective study on the treatment outcome of
Garlini, G., Bianchi, C., Chierichetti, V., Sigurtà, (2001) An investigation of 131 consecutively wide-bodied implants. International Journal of
D., Maiorana, C. & Santoro, F. (2003) placed wide screw-vent implants. International Prosthodontics 17: 52–58.
Retrospective clinical study of Osseotite im- Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 16: Stellingsma, C., Meijer, H.J.A. & Raghoebar, G.M.
plants: zero-to-5-year results. International 827–832. (2000) Use of short endosseous implants and an
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 18: Krennmair, G. & Waldenberger, O. (2004) Clinical overdenture in the extremely resorbed mandible: a
589–593. analysis of wide-diameter Frialit-2 implants. five-year retrospective study. Journal of Oral and
Goené, R., Bianchesi, C., Hürzeler, M., Del Lupo, International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Maxillofacial Surgery 58: 382–387.
R., Testori, T., Davarpanah, M. & Jalbout, Z. Implants 19: 710–715. Stellingsma, K., Bouma, J., Stegenga, B., Meijer,
(2005) Performance of short implants in partial Lekholm, U., Gunne, J., Henry, P., Higuchi, K., H.J.A. & Raghoebar, G.M. (2003) Satisfaction
restorations: 3-year follow-up of Osseotite Linden, U., Bergström, C. & van Steenberghe, D. and psychosocial aspects of patients with an
implants. Implant Dentistry 14: 274–280. (1999) Survival of the Brånemark implant in extremely resorbed mandible treated with
Griffin, T.J. & Cheung, W.S. (2004) The use of partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective implant-retained overdentures. Clinical Oral
short, wide implants in posterior areas with re- multicenter study. International Journal of Oral Implant Research 14: 166–172.
duced bone height: a retrospective investigation. & Maxillofacial Implants 14: 639–645. Tawill, G. & Younan, R. (2003) Clinical evaluation
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 92: 139–144. Lekholm, U., van Steenberghe, D., Herrmann, I., of short, machined-surface implants followed for
Gunne, J., Astrand, P., Lindh, T., Borg, K. & Bolender, C., Folmer, T., Gunne, J. & Henry, P.J. 12 to 92 months. International Journal of Oral &
Olsson, M. (1999) Tooth-implant and implant (1994) Osseointegrated implants in the treatment Maxillofacial Implants 18: 894–901.
supported fixed partial dentures: a 10-year report. of partially edentulous jaws: a prospective 5-year Ten Bruggenkate, C.M., Asikainen, P., Foitzik, C.,
International Journal of Prosthodontics 12: multicenter study. International Journal of Oral Krekeler, G. & Sutter, F. (1998) Short (6 mm)
216–221. & Maxillofacial Implants 9: 627–635. nonsubmerged dental implants: results of a multi-
Hallman, M. (2001) A prospective study of treat- Lekholm, U. & Zarb, G. (1985) Patient selection center clinical trial of 1 to 7 years. International
ment of severely resorbed maxillae with narrow and preparation. In: Brånemark, P.I., Zarb, G. & Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 13:
nonsubmerged implants: results after 1 year of Albrektsson, T., eds. Tissue-Integrated Pros- 791–798.
Testori, T., Wiseman, L., Woolfe, S. & Porter, S.S. tional Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants years of follow-up. International Journal of Oral
(2001) A prospective multicenter clinical study of 5: 272–281. & Maxillofacial Implants 18: 417–423.
the Osseotite implant: four-year interim report. Vigolo, P. & Givani, A. (2000) Clinical evaluation of Winkler, S., Morris, H.F. & Ochi, S. (2000)
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial single-tooth mini-implant restorations: a five- Implant survival to 36 months as related to
Implants 16: 193–200. year retrospective study. Journal of Prosthetic length and diameter. Annals of Periodontology
Texeira, E.R., Wadamato, M., Akagawa, Y. & Ki- Dentistry 84: 50–54. 5: 22–31.
moto, T. (1997) Clinical application of short Vigolo, P., Givani, A., Majzoub, Z. & Cordioli, G. Wyatt, C.C.L. & Zarb, G.A. (1998) Treatment
hydroxylapatite-coated dental implants to the (2004) Clinical evaluation of small-diameter im- outcomes of patients with implant-supported
posterior mandible: a five-year survival study. plants in single-tooth and multiple-implant re- fixed partial prostheses. International Journal of
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 78: 166–171. storations: a 7-year retrospective study. Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 13: 204–211.
van Steenberghe, D., Lekholm, U., Bolender, C., International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Zinsli, B., Sägesser, T., Mericske, E. & Mericske-
Folmer, T., Henry, P., Herrmann, I., Higuchi, K., Implants 19: 703–709. Stern, R. (2004) Clinical evaluation of small-
Laney, W., Linden, U. & Astrand, P. (1990) The Weng, D., Jacobson, Z., Tarnow, D., Hürzeler, M., diameter ITI implants: a prospective study.
applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in Faehn, O., Sanavi, F., Barkvoll, P. & Stach, R. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial
the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospec- (2003) A prospective multicenter clinical trial of Implants 19: 92–99.
tive multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Interna- 3i machined-surfaced implants: results after 6