2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2018.11.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Short implants (5–8 mm) vs. long implants in augmented bone and their impact on peri-implant bone in maxilla and/or mandible: Systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
10
0
6

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
10
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…With a view to minimally invasive implant surgery, short implants or ultrashort implants (<6 mm in length) are a valid alternative. In a systematic review of RTCs, Amine et al showed promising results in terms of bone loss in these types of implants that are increasingly used [5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With a view to minimally invasive implant surgery, short implants or ultrashort implants (<6 mm in length) are a valid alternative. In a systematic review of RTCs, Amine et al showed promising results in terms of bone loss in these types of implants that are increasingly used [5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, short implants can be a viable solution in implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible with bone atrophy [7][8][9]. The development of surface treatment technologies, Appl.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sci. 2020, 10, 401 2 of 11 high-performance materials, and design of microtopography of implants have helped to increase the reliability of short implants [7][8][9][10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations