Short implants in clinical practice

IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS)
e-ISSN: 2279-0853, p-ISSN: 2279-0861.Volume 16, Issue 5 Ver. XI (May. 2017), PP 89-96
www.iosrjournals.org
DOI: 10.9790/0853-1605118996 www.iosrjournals.org 89 | Page
Short implants in clinical practice
Abu-Hussein Muhamad*, Chlorokostas Georges, Abdulgani Azzaldeen
Abstract: Over time, progressively shorter implants have been placed such that short implants are now
available that are less than 6 mm in length. The viability and high success rates seen with short implants can
be explained by osseointegration, the macro geometric design of the implant, as well as physics and the
distribution of forces. This paper was aimed to review the stability and survival rate of short implants under
functional loads. Numerical and clinical studies were reviewed.
Keywords: Short dental implants, sinus augmentation, factors affecting bone regeneration in dental
implantology.
I. Introduction
Osseointegrated dental implants are an effective alternative in the rehabilitation of partial or total
edentulous patients [ 1]. Both the need and increase of using treatments associated with dental implants resulted
from the combined effect of several factors, such as: population aging, tooth loss related to age, anatomical
consequences of edentulism, unsatisfactory performance of removable dentures, psychological aspects of tooth
loss, and advantages of implant-supported dentures [2]. Short dental implant placement is an alternative
treatment modality to bone grafting procedures [2]. Moreover, short implants may present results similar to
those of longer implants [3]. An implant is considered as short when presenting a length smaller than 10 mm [2].
Accordingly, in clinical situations with little bone availability, short implants are a viable, simple, and
predictable alternative [3].
Fig 1; Pre-operative radiograph. Fig 2; Final placement 5.0 X 6.0mm
The rehabilitation treatment by implants instituted new concepts of dental prosthesis planning, and this
approach provided an efficient masticatory function to patient as well as established aesthetical alternatives
[4,5]. Despite this, such rehabilitative strategy demands the possibility of osseointegrated implant placement
into the remanent tooth socket and/or basal bone [6]. Otherwise, implant-supported prosthesis planning will be
limited, requiring other treatment options to satisfy patient’s needs [1,7]. Fig 1.2
Fig 3; Pre-operative radiograph. Fig 4; Post-operattive short implant

Fig 5; Two unsplinted molar implant crowns
The pattern of bone losses after tooth extraction at both maxilla’s posterior area and mandible is
different. Maxilla presents a greater horizontal loss, at buccal-palatal direction, with a slow vertical loss [7].
Maxilla’s vertical bone loss occurs in two directions – the natural height remodeling undergone by the bone and
maxillary sinus pneumatization [8]. On the other hand, the mandibular vertical bone loss occurs mainly at the
vertical direction, generally resulting in a smaller bone height but with reasonable bone amount at the horizontal
plane [ 9,10]. Because of this type of bone loss and the presence of important anatomical areas, the planning of
atrophic arches’ posterior sites is normally more complex [9]. Previous surgeries for bone volume gain and the
use of angulated or short implants have been solutions for the treatment planning in these areas [10,11,12]. The
possibilities for patient’s rehabilitation in such limiting situations have involved advanced surgical techniques,
such as bone grafts, maxillary sinus lifting, which demand high surgical training as well as increase the
treatment length and cost [8,10,12,13]. Fig 3,4,5
The use of short implants offer, in relation to the regenerative techniques, several advantages: low cost and
treatment length, simplicity, and less risk of complications [8,10].
Indications for short dental implants ;Short implants can be used in almost all types of replacements whether
fixed or removable including:
1. Single and multiple fixed prosthesis in posterior jaw.
2. In the treatment of a severely resorbed edentulous mandible,
with four short-length implants used to support an overdenture or six short implants used to support a fixed
prosthesis.
3. In edentulous maxilla, two short-length implants are additionally placed in the distal area, together with
longer implants in the premaxilla to support a maxillary overdenture or a fixed prosthesis[14,15].
Fig 6; Short round implant for unsplinted second molar
II. Advantages Of Short Dental Implants
1. Bone grafting to compensate for less height is unnecessary.
2. Less money, pain and time associated with various surgical procedures before placement of implant.
3. Complex surgical techniques are often associated with complications during surgery such as bleeding,
perforation of the Schneiderian membrane or nerve injury and post-operatively such as transient or permanent
alteration of mandibular sensation, graft and/or membrane exposure, infections and increased peri-implant bone
loss. This can be avoided.
4. Osteotomy preparation is simplified since shorter bone preparation is required at the implant site which
provides direct access for water irrigation and reduces the possibility of bone overheating.
5. Implant insertion is easier.

6. Angulation to load is improved with short osteotomy site since the basal bone beyond the original alveolar
ridge is not always located in the long axis of the missing tooth.[14,15.16,17,18]
This paper was aimed to review the the stability and survival rate of short implants under functional loads.
Numerical and clinical studies were reviewed.
Α.Anatomical sites of jaw bones
A.a.Bone anatomy in the maxilla
Tooth to alveolar relationship in the maxilla, skeletal patterns influence the interpretation of tooth
position versus jaw bone position using CT studies. The important anatomical vital organ effect to treatment
plan is the maxillary sinus.
Maxillary basal bone relationships: The alveolar bone and basal ridge often diverge from each other.
This inappropriateness will influence for socket preservation as the more divergent the alveolus becomes, the
thinner the facial alveolar bone and the higher resorption following tooth loss.[19] Fig 1.2,3,4,5 The maxillary
bone quality has been described as less dense when compared with the mandible. They found that the anterior
mandible had densest bone, followed by the posterior mandible, anterior maxilla, and posterior maxilla .[20]
A.b.Bone anatomy in the mandible
Tooth to alveolar relationship in the mandible: Similar to the maxillary position of mandibular teeth is
commonly divergent to the position of the basal bone. The important anatomical vital organ effect to treatment
plan is inferior alveolar nerve.[20] Fig.6
Α.Biomechanical Considerations
B.1.Diagnostic
a)Implant diameter: It is more efficient than implant length for dissipation of stresses, because the area
receiving maximum effort is the bone crest and very little stress is transferred to the apical portion. An increased
length would therefore only improve primary stability but wider implant would not only increase the primary
stability but also the functional surface area at the crestal bone level leading to better distribution of occlusal
forces. Finite element analysis has also supported this concept and demonstrated that implant length might not
be the principal factor influencing transfer of occlusal loads to the bone-implant interface .[21]
b).Implant design: The implant surface area can be increased by [20,21,22]:
I. Thread number: More the number of threads per unit length in the same axial plane more is the implant
surface area in contact with the bone.
II. Thread depth: Deeper threads provide more implant surface area.
III. Thread shape: The square thread design has a higher bone-implant contact percent as compared to v-shape
and reverse buttress thread designs .
IV. Implant surface: As compared to turned smooth surface, rough microtopography of implant surface
increases the bone-implant contact surface area and accelerates osseo-integration. It also compensates for
inadequate crown/implant ratio
c). Lack of cantilevers: A cantilever magnifies the forces directly proportional to the height of the crown. It
creates six different potential rotation points on the implant body. Eliminating cantilevers favors biomechanics
and increased treatment predictability.[20.23]
d). Number of implants: Use of multiple implants will increase the functional surface area to resist occlusal
forces.[20.24]
e). Crown/implant ratio: Increased crown/implant ratio can act as a vertical cantilever leading to crestal bone
loss and implant failure. However, improvements of surfaces and implant systems along with proper force
orientation and load distribution have allowed high crown/implant ratios to be applied with success.[20,23]
B.2. Surgical
a) Two step surgical protocol: A two stage surgery is advocated for short implants as it provides good primary
stability during healing phase. The time elapsed between the surgical and load stage should be 4-6months for
maxilla and 2-4months for mandible [20].
b) Adapted surgical protocol: Enhanced initial implant stability can be achieved by eliminating a step in
standard surgical protocol such as eliminating the countersink drill or eliminating the final drill in the standard
drilling sequence [20,24]. Soft bone drilling protocol should be followed in poor quality bone whereas, the final
bone drilling is done with narrow drills rather than standard size drills.[25]
B.3.Prosthetic
a) Implant to abutment connection: Morse taper connection induces less marginal bone loss as compared to
external hex abutment connection and also promotes bone growth over the implant shoulder [21]. Internal hex
implant abutment connection shows a wider force distribution as compared to external hex connection. [22]
Platform switching maintains the crestal bone for the entire length of the implant up to the collar level.

b) Occlusal table: Small occlusal table reduces the offset loads on the implant.
c) Incisal guidance: Implants should follow a biomechanical approach similar to natural teeth to accommodate
the higher bite forces in the posterior regions of the mouth. Incisal guidance of the anterior teeth eliminates
lateral forces to the posterior teeth in all mandibular excursions.[20]
d) Splinting: Splinting implants increases the functional surface area of support and transmits less force to the
prosthesis, the cement, abutment screws and the implant bone interface especially when placed in soft
bone.[20,25]
III. Use Of Short Implants With Adjunctive Surgical Procedures
To facilitate implant placement in posterior atrophic maxilla, the use of a crestal lift procedure could be
a less invasive alternative to the conventional lateral widow procedure. While the crestal approach is less
invasive, there are some disadvantages associated with it: the amount of bone that can be gained using a crestal
approach is less than what can be obtained with the lateral window technique, and a minimal amount of crestal
bone height of about 3 mm is required to stabilise the implant at placement [26]. Therefore, in presence of
reduced residual bone height, along with crestal sinus lift procedure, placement of short implants have been
attempted to reduce the rehabilitation period [ 27]. Fig.7
Also, implants installed into alveolar sockets immediately after tooth extraction have been shown to
yield predictable outcomes [ 20]. The use of this procedure reduces the number of surgical sessions and may
also reduce the time between surgery and prosthetic delivery [28]. For this placement modality the need for
implants that are longer than the remaining extraction sockets has been propagated under the assumption that
implant stability may be guaranteed in the area beyond the apex of the extraction socket [29]. However, because
of the presence of anatomical structures such as the maxillary sinus or the inferior alveolar nerve, bone may not
be available beyond the apex of the socket. Therefore various investigators have studied effectiveness of short
implants placed in animal models and have found promising results in immediate extraction sockets [30]. Fig.8
Fig 7: failing maxillary short implant used as distal abutment for long span bridge
IV. Discussion
The use of Short dental implants has been debated over more than two decades now because of their
assumed high failure rates when compared to the long implants which promise better long-term results.
However, research fails to tell us that prognosis of the Implant is dependent upon the length. [1,3,20]According
to Goodacre et al. in 1999 a review of Short dental implants in clinical studies between 1981 and 1997; a higher
failure rate with short implants than with long implants was observed. However, recent clinical and
biomechanical studies and reviews[3,9,10] show that short implants predictability is comparable to long ones.
Over the last decade, Short dental implants have been extensively reviewed, and many factors relevant to
success of the implant have been put forward.[31]
Atieh et al. the authors found that short implants may constitute a viable alternative to longer implants,
which may often require additional augmentation procedures. [32]In a retrospective study done by Anitua et al
results showed that Short dental implants can be considered safe and predictable if used under strict protocols.
These protocols include restriction of lateral forces on implant prosthesis, increasing thread pitch and others as
mentioned earlier.[33]
In a study carried out by Arlin[34] comparing clinical outcome of short (6-mm and 8-mm) dental
implants placed in sites with low bone availability (7-11 mm) the results indicated that the 2-year outcome for 6-
mm and 8-mm implants was comparable to that for longer (10-mm to 16-mm) implants in this patient
population. The work of Friberg et al. on machined 6 mm and 7 mm long implants, which had longest
observational period showed that implant losses occurred prior to or around first few years of loading and no
major complications occurred over time.[35]

Fig 8 : successfully restored short dental implants in the mandible
Misch et al. published a literature review of failure rates associated with dental implants <10 mm long
in the posterior regions of partially edentulous patients undergoing placement from 1991 to 2003. They reported
that among the 2837 short implants, the survival rate was 85.3%. It has been suggested that the use of longer
implants to provide a larger surface area for stress distribution may not necessarily be appropriate or
advantageous.[22]
Hagi et al reported that short implants of 6 and 7 mm length with press-fit shape and sintered porous
surface topography demonstrated the best performance, with a lower failure rate.[36] It was concluded that
surface geometry plays a major role in performance of dental implants of lengths 7 mm or less. Das Neves et al
analyzed the treatment outcome of longitudinal studies using Branemark and compatible implants of 7, 8.5, and
10 mm in length, and based on the results they recommended that short implants could be used as an alternative
treatment to advanced bone augmentation surgeries.[19] Telleman et al conducted a systematic review that
evaluated the survival rate of short (< 10 mm) implants in partially edentulous patients and concluded that short
implants can be successfully used in these patients with better prognosis in the mandible of nonsmokers.[16] A
systematic review by Annibali et al evaluated clinical studies which use implants of less than 10 mm length, to
determine the success of short implant-supported prosthesis in the atrophic alveolar ridge. They found a higher
cumulative survival rate for implants with a rough surface, which leads to the conclusion that the provision of
short implants with prostheses in patients with atrophic jaws seems to be a successful treatment modality in the
short term; however, more clinical studies are needed to support the long-term assessment.[37]
Kotsovilis et al, who conducted his meta-analysis to answer the question: “Is there a significant
difference in survival between short (≤ 8 or < 10 mm) and conventional (≥ 10 mm) roughsurface dental implants
placed in totally or partially edentulous patients?” This meta-analysis included 37 articles and concluded that the
placement of roughsurface short implants was as effective a treatment modality as long rough-surface
implants.[38]The second review, by Romeo et al,33 concluded that short and standard implants have a similar
survival rate. Nevertheless, some important confounders needed to be identified in future studies as they might
be contributing factors on the success of short implants.[39] Yang et al. evaluated experimentally the
biomechanical performance of seven 7mm short implants in splinted restorations using strain gauges. The
implants were splinted together (short-short implant splinted restoration, SS) or individually with a 4.4 Χ
12.0mm implant (short-long implant splinted restoration, SL), and a 50Noblique load was applied to both
restorations. They observed that the strain was significantly decreasing with increasing implantdiameter in both
the SS and SL restorations, and the observed strain was identical for the splinted implants of the same diameter
and those splinted to the long implant. They suggested that splinting of two short implants has the same
biomechanical effectiveness as splinting to a single long implant.[40]
Grant et al evaluated the overall success rate of short implants (8 mm in length) placed in the partially
or completely edentulous mandible and restored withfixed or removable prostheses. A total of 124 patients were
included in the study, with placement of 335 short implants, and the survival rate obtained was 99% in the
mandible. It was concluded that short implants provide a predictable treatment alternative to bone grafting and
nerve lateralization for the atrophic mandible.[41]
Esposito et al supported the same conclusion with a randomized control trial that compared 6.3-mm-
long implants to longer implants placed in vertically augmented atrophic posterior mandibles, and evaluatedif
this was a suitable alternative treatment option. The study included 60 partially edentulous patients who were
assigned to two groups to receive either 1 to 3 short or longer implants placed in vertically augmented bone. All
patients were followed for up to 3 years after loading. Results showed that there were statistically significantly
more complications in augmented patients. Short implants experienced statistically significantly less bone loss
than long implants. It was concluded that short implants could be a valid alternative to vertical augmentation
and provide faster and less expensive treatment with less morbidity.[42]

Pieri et al. evaluated prospectively the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 61 submerged ultrashort
implants (4mm diameter, 6mm length) supporting fixed partial dentures in severely atrophic posterior
mandibles. The implants were loaded after 5 to 6 months. They recorded a failure of two implants before
loading, while the other implants had favourable clinical and radiographic findings throughout the observation
period (2-year survival and success rate: 96.8%). Mean changes in marginal bone levels were stable (0.40 ±
0.23, 0.51 ± 0.38, and 0.60 ± 0.13mm after 6 months and 1 and 2 years, resp.) and were unaffected by measured
crown-to-implant ratios (range: 1.31 to 3.12).[43]
Stellingsma et al compared the clinical and radiographic results of three groups of implant treatment in
combination with overdenture prostheses in patients with extremely resorbed mandibles. The three treatment
groups were: a transmandibular implant, augmentation of the mandible with an autogenous bone graft and the
placement of four implants, and the placement of four implants (8 to 11 mm in length) only. Postoperative
complications, implant survival, periodontal indices, change in bone height, and prosthetic complications were
assessed during a 10-year evaluation period. After 10 years they found significantly fewer implants were lost in
the implant-only group. The cumulative 10-year implant survival rate of the transmandibular implants was
76.3%, and the augmentation group 88%, in comparison with the group provided with short endosseous
implants (98.8%). It was concluded that the use of short implants in combination with overdentures in the
extremely resorbed mandible seems to be the first choice of treatment because of the low morbidity, high
survival rate, and favorable periodontal parameters. In addition, the surgery can be done in an outpatient setting
which will reduce the cost of treatment.[44]
Greenstein and Tarnow reported that the guidelines for implant placement include leaving a 2mm
safety zone between an implant and the coronal aspect of the nerve.[45] Therefore, the observation of the
inferior alveolar nerve and mental foramen on panoramic and periapical films prior to implant placement is
essential. Other authors agree with Greenstein to maintain a spatial distance of 2mm or more for safety reasons
in three dimensional planning [46].
Few studies used exclusively short implants in maxilla (Fig. 5). Success rates of 94.6% to 100% were
reported. [2,6,8,10,11,13]Fuggazzato and co-workers placed 979 implants in molar position, restored them with
single crowns and followed them up to 84 months, with a cumulative success rate of 95.1%. These success rates
may be attributed to the use of rough surface implants and a better assessment of bone quality, with a change in
surgical technique. A study on ultra-short implants (5x5 mm)48 with success rates of 85.7% for maxilla and
100% for mandible after a functional period of 1 to 8 years may push even further the limits of conservative
approaches in implant dentistry. However, long-term controlled studies and bigger sample size are warranted to
determine the validity of these results in maxilla.[47]
Early studies indicating good long-term results on short implants, independently of surface
characteristics and prosthetic considerations, used preferably the mandible as a primary site versus the maxilla.
Tawil and Younan used the mandible in 88.8% of the cases, whereas Deporter and co-workers25 used it in
100% of the cases.[48] The main reason for indicating short implants in mandible is better mandibular bone
quality compared to maxilla It is also of relevance to note that vertical bone augmentation techniques in
mandible are more difficult to achieve and less predictable than in maxilla (lateral approach or osteotome
technique sinus lifts). Numerous reports using short implants of different surfaces and macrogeometry
confirmed the approach validity in posterior mandible .[50]
Short implants are a much less complex and less invasive treatment than placement of longer implants
in clinical sites where prior adjunctive ridge augmentation, localized bone grafting, inferior mandibular nerve
repositioning or maxillary sinus elevation would be required. They also result in the removal of less bone than
with longer implants and are less invasive compared to these and therefore probably less traumatic.
Short implants simplify treatment in the posterior resorbed maxilla and mandible and reduce the number of
situations where adjunctive therapy is required. Even in cases where adjunctive therapy is still required, the
degree of invasiveness may be reduced for instance, Ferrigno et al. concluded following an analysis of 12-year
data that the use of short implants together with the less invasive internal sinus lift procedure could reduce the
need for the more invasive sinus lifts and bone grafting. Short implants can also be placed if previous bone graft
resorption has occurred at a site intended for longer implants. They also remove the need for cantilevers that
might otherwise be required to avoid placing implants in an area with resorbed bone and that are associated with
a higher failure rate.[51]
Malo et al. published their prospective study in 2007 on 237 patients who received 408 short (7–8.5
mm) implants (131 7 mm; 227 8.5 mm). Restoration and loadingoccurred four to six months following implant
placement. The cumulative survival rate was found to be 96.2% for 7 mm implants and 97.1% for 8.5 mm
implants at five years, with a follow-up period ranging from one to nine years.[52] The use of short implants not
only reduces the need for more invasive adjunctive treatment, but also therefore reduces the risk of failure or
complications associated with these procedures and removes the risk of complications that could be associated
with placement of longer implants in a site where the height or amount of available bone is suboptimal. A

further consideration is the more invasive nature of the major adjunctive surgical procedures that may be
relatively contraindicated in patients who are otherwise suitable candidates for implant therapy.[1,2,8,10,20]
For the clinician, placement of short implants of a site-appropriate length is substantially less difficult than the
placement of longer implants where an adjunctiveprocedure would also be required. Shorter implants therefore
increase the number of cases that can be treated by the general dentist without referral. This enables the general
practitioner who is trained and has gained expertise in the placement of endosseous implants to treat the patient
and place a short implant without the need for an adjunctive procedure. [1,2,8,10,20]
V. Conclusion
Short implants are simpler to place in clinical sites with healthy bone, albeit with lower height and
volume than required for longer implants. They have been studied in single unit and multiple-unit implant-
supported fixed prostheses and overdentures. In recent studies, they have proven to have success and survival
rates equivalent to longer implants. This has several implications for the patient and clinician.
References
[1]. Muhamad et al; Tooth extraction, immediate implant placement: a case report, Asian Pac. J. Health Sci., 2014; 1(4): 543-549
[2]. Abu-Hussein M,, Abdulghani A., Sarafianou A., Kontoes N.; Implants into fresh extraction site: A literature review,case immediate
placement report, Journal of Dental Implants. 2013;3(2):160-164
[3]. Bajali M., Abdulgani Azz., Abu-Hussein M, Extraction and immediate implant placement, and provisionalization with two years
follow-up: a case report, Int J Dent Health Sci 2014; 1(2): 229236.
[4]. Abdulgani A.,. Kontoes N., Chlorokostas G.,Abu-Hussein M .;Interdisciplinary Management Of Maxillary Lateral Incisors
Agenesis With Mini Implant Prostheses: A Case Report; IOSR-JDMS 2015,14 (12) , 36-42
[5]. Abu-Hussein Muhamad Chlorokostas Georges , Abusalih Ahmet , Ismail Hakki Bayraktar , Abdulgani Azzaldeen; Immediate
Implant Placement and Loading in Esthetic Zone. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 2016 ,1, 71-79,DOI: 10.9790/0853-
15187179
[6]. Abu-Hussein M, Chlorokostas G, Watted N , Abdulgani A , Jabareen A; PreProsthetic Orthodontic Implant for Management of
Congenitally Unerupted Lateral Incisors – A Case Report. J Dent Med Sci2016, 15: 99-104.
[7]. Mai A, Azzaldeen A, Nezar W, Chlorokostas G, Muhamad AH; Extraction and Immediate Implant Placement with Single-
StageSurgical Procedure: Technical Notes and a Case Report. J Dent Med Sci2016, 15: 95-101
[8]. Abu-Hussein M, Watted N, Shamir D ;A Retrospective Study of the AL Technology Implant System used for Single-Tooth
Replacement. Int J Oral Craniofac Sci 2016,2(1): 039-046. DOI: 10.17352/2455-4634.000017
[9]. Muhamad AH, Azzaldeen A, Nezar W, Mohammed Z. ; Esthetic Evaluation of Implants Placed after Orthodontic Treatment in
Patients with Congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res2015 ;3(3):110-118
[10]. Abu-Hussein M, Georges C, Watted N, Azzaldeen A ;A Clinical Study Resonance Frequency Analysis of Stability during the
Healing Period. Int J Oral Craniofac Sci 2016,2(1): 065-071. DOI: 10.17352/2455-4634.000021
[11]. Abdulgani Azzaldeen ,Chlorokostas Georges , Abu-Hussein Muhamad; “One-Piece” Immediate-Load Post-Extraction Implant In
Maxillary Central Incisor. J Dent Med Sci2017,16,78-83, DOI: 10.9790/0853-1603137883
[12]. Abdulgani Azzaldeen, Chlorokostas Georges, Kontoes Nikos, Abu-Hussein Muhamad; Zirconium Dental Implants And Crown for
Congenitally Missing Maxillary Lateral; Clinical Case J Dent Med Sci2017,16,72-77. DOI: 10.9790/0853-1603137277
[13]. Abu-Hussein M., Abdulgani A., Watted N .Zahalka M.; Congenitally Missing Lateral Incisor with Orthodontics, Bone Grafting and
Single-Tooth Implant: A Case Report. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences2015, 14(4),124-130
[14]. Murray L. Arlin (2006) Short Dental Implants as a Treatment Option: Results from an Observational Study in a Single Private
Practice - International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants Vol 25, (5) 769 -776.
[15]. Ana Claudia Rossi, Emmanuel (2011) Short implants in oral rehabilitation RSBO July SEPT8 (3)329-34.
[16]. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM (2011) A Systemic review of the prognosis of short (<10mm) dental implants placed in the partially
edentulous patient (2011) Journal Clin. Peridontol; 38; 667-676
[17]. Eriberto Bressan, Stefano Sivolella (2012) Short implants (6mm) installed immediately into extraction sockets; an experimental
study in dogs Clin. Oral Implants Research; 23, 536-541.
[18]. Antonto Alves de Almeida-Junior (2011) Predictability of short dental implants; a literature review RSBO Jan-Mar; 8(1); 74-80.
[19]. Neves FD, Fones D, Bernardes SR, Prado CJ, Neto AJ. Short implants: an [3]analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants. 2006;21:86–93.
[20]. Misch CE, Bidez MW. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999.
[21]. Romeo E, Bivio A, Mosca D, Scanferla M, Ghisolfi M, Storelli S. The use of short dental implants in clinical practice: Literature
review. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:23-31.
[22]. Misch CE, Steignga J, Barboza E, Misch-Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C. Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: A
multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study. J Periodontol 2006;77:1340-7.
[23]. Misch CE. Implant design considerations for the posterior regions of the mouth. Implant Dent 1999;8:376-86.
[24]. Shigley JE, Mischke CR. Mechanical Engineering Design. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1989. p. 325-70.
[25]. Lum LB. A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 1991;17:126-31.
[26]. Cosci F, Luccioli M. A new sinus lifts technique in conjunction with placement of 265 implants: a 6- year retrospective study.
Implant dentistry. 2000 Jan 1; 9(4):363.
[27]. Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. Comparison of strains for splinted and nonsplinted screw-retained prostheses on
short implants. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2011 Dec 1; 26(6).
[28]. Botticelli D, Renzi A, Lindhe J, Berglundh T. Implants in fresh extraction sockets: a prospective 5‐ year follow‐ up clinical study.
Clinical oral implants research. 2008 Dec 1; 19(12):1226-32.
[29]. Covani U, Crespi R, Cornelini R, Barone A. Immediate implants supporting single crown restoration: a 4-year prospective study.
Journal of periodontology. 2004 Jul 1; 75(7):982-8.
[30]. Becker CM, Wilson TG, Jensen OT. Minimum criteria for immediate provisionalization of singletooth dental implants in extraction
sites: a 1-year retrospective study of 100 consecutive cases. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2011 Feb 28; 69(2):491-7.

[31]. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999
May;81(5):537-52
[32]. Atieh MA, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, Cooper LF. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: A
systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1323-31.
[33]. Anitua E, Orive G. Short implants in maxillae and mandibles: A retrospective study with 1 to 8 years of follow-up. J Periodontol
2010;81:819-26.
[34]. Arlin ML. Short dental implants as a treatment option: Results from an observational study in a single private practice. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:769-76.
[35]. Friberg B, Gröndahl K, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI. Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed
with short Brånemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:184-9.
[36]. Hagi D, Deporter DA, Pilliar RM, Arenovich T. A targeted review of study outcomes with short (< or=7 mm) endosseous dental
implants placed in partially edentulous patients. J Periodontol 2004;75:798-804.
[37]. Annibali S, Cristalli M, Dell’Aquila D, Bignozzi I, La Monaca G, Pilloni A. Short dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res
2012;91:25–32.
[38]. Kotsovilis S, Fourmousis I, Karoussis IK, Bamia C. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of implant length on the
survival of rough-surface dental implants. J Periodontol 2009;80:1700–1718.
[39]. Romeo E, Bivio A, Mosca D, Scanferla M, Ghisolfi M, Storelli S. The use of short dental implants in clinical practice: literature
review. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:23–31.
[40]. T. C. Yang, Y. Maeda, and T. Gonda, “Biomechanical rationale for short implants in splinted restorations: an in vitro study,”The
International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 130– 132, 2011.
[41]. Grant BT, Pancko FX, Kraut RA. Outcomes of placing short dental implants in the posterior mandible: a retrospective study of 124
cases. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2009 Apr 30; 67(4):713-7.
[42]. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants,(II).
Etiopathogenesis. European journal of oral sciences. 1998 Jun 1; 106(3):721-64.
[43]. F. Pieri, N. N. Aldini,M. Fini, C.Marchetti, and G. Corinaldesi, “Preliminary 2-year report on treatment outcomes for 6 mm long
implants in posterior atrophic mandibles,” International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 279–289, 2012.
[44]. Stellingsma C, Vissink A, Meijer HJ, Kuiper C, Raghoebar GM. Implantology and the severely resorbed edentulous mandible. Crit
Rev Oral Biol Med 2004;15:240–248.
[45]. G. Greenstein and D. Tarnow, “The mental foramen and nerve: clinical and anatomical factors related to dental implant placement:
a literature review,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 77, no. 12, pp. 1933–1943, 2006.
[46]. H. J. Nickenig, S. Eitner, D. Rothamel, M. Wichmann, and J. E. Z¨oller, “Possibilities and limitations of implant placement by
virtual planning data and surgical guide templates,” International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 9–21, 2008
[47]. Fugazzotto PA, Beagle JR, Ganeles J, Jaffin R, Vlassis J, Kumar A. Success and failure rates of 9mm or shorter implants in the
replacement of missing maxillary molars when restored with individual crowns: preliminary results 0- 84 months in function. A
retrospective study. J Periodontol. 2004;75:327-32.
[48]. Tawil G, Aboujaoude N, Younan R. Influence of prosthetic parameters on the survival and complication rates of short implants. Int
J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:275-82.
[49]. Deporter DA, Todescan R, Watson PA, Pharoah M, Pilliar RM, Tomlinson G. A prospective human clinical trial of Endopore
dental implants in restoring the partially edentulous maxilla using fixed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 2001;16:527-536
[50]. Nedir R, Bischof M, Briaux JM, Beyer S, Smuckler-Monkler S, Bernard JP. A 7-year life-table analysis from a prospective study on
ITI Implants with special emphasis on the use of short implants: results from a private practice. Clin Oral Impl Res 2004.15:150-
157.
[51]. Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S. Inferior alveolar nerve transposition in conjunction with implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants. 2005 Jul- Aug;20(4):610-620
[52]. Malσ P, de Araϊjo Nobre M, Rangert B. Short implants placed one-stage in maxillae and mandibles: a retrospective clinical study
with 1 to 9 years of followup. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007 Mar;9(1):15- 21.

Short implants in clinical practice

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Short implants in clinical practice (20)

More from Abu-Hussein Muhamad (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Short implants in clinical practice