Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Single Crowns or Short Fixed Partial Dentures Supported by Short (≤6 mm) Dental Implants: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Long-term clinical outcomes of short dental implants (≤6 mm) supporting single crowns or short fixed partial dentures have been reported differently in different studies and need more clarification. This systematic study evaluated the rate of bone loss (BL), the durability of implants equal to or shorter than 6 mm supporting single crowns or short fixed partial dentures, and prosthetic-related side effects during 5 years of follow-up. Five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane) were electronically and manually searched for longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of 5 years or more until January 2023. The study question was, “Does the implant equal to or shorter than 6 mm affect BL and survival rate of the implant-supported prosthesis after 5 years of follow-up?”. From 752 identified articles, nine studies were selected for further evaluation. After 5 years of follow-up, most studies had more than 90% survival rate and the maximum BL was 0.54 mm. Still, in internal and external connections, these changes were not substantial. For example, screw loosening was the most common problem with implanted prostheses. Implants of 6 mm or shorter are a suitable treatment option in atrophic ridges with good durability and fewer side effects during a follow-up period of more than 5 years.

Keywords

crown - implant - review

Introduction

Dental implants are a suitable method for oral rehabilitation in edentulous people (partial or complete).[1] Using conventional implants of 10 mm length have shown acceptable results in long-term follow-up.[2] However, using 10 mm-long implants in some conditions, such as atrophy or reduced bone loss (BL), is impossible. In these cases, dentists use invasive methods such as bone reconstruction or raising the maxillary sinus floor.[3] Despite the high predictive advantage,[4] it has side effects such as the need for more surgery, more extended recovery period, and higher cost.[5] Besides new findings of using new materials for tissue regeneration,[6] [7] like extracted tooth material for bone augmentation,[8] studies show that using short implants in people with bone resorption has been a reliable solution over the past few years,[9] and the high crown-implant ratio does not cause any complications.[10]

According to studies, implants shorter than 10 mm are equally effective compared to standard implants with rough surfaces. Using short-coated implants in the posterior areas has side effects, BL, and the fracture rate is less.[11] [12] [13] In addition, short implants have debatable definitions. According to various opinions, a length less than 11,[14] 10,[15] or 8 mm[5] is defined as a short implant and a length less than 6.5 mm is considered a very short implant.[16] [17]

Although implant-assisted restorations have a high survival and success rate in treatment, these prostheses are still subject to various complications, including biological and technical.[18] [19] One of these consequences may be creating incorrect occlusal forces as an axial load. In some experimental studies[20] and the animal model,[21] the results of occlusal loading showed increased pressure on the bone surrounding the implant. However, results of long-term clinical trials have shown contradictory results, for example, some longitudinal clinical studies have suggested a combination of occlusal problems and bone resorption surrounding the implant,[22] but some studies have argued that there is no association between occlusal trauma and BL around the implant.[23] There are numerous reasons to explain these discrepancies, such as it is difficult to identify the extent and direction of occlusal pressure as a complex variable.[24] However, there is no scientific evidence of the amount of bone pressure threshold surrounding the implant, which is the endpoint of the repair and the beginning of bone resorption around the prosthesis.[25] Genetic factors can also affect bone tolerance and differ from person to person.

The crown–implant ratio (C:I) indicates the axial loading. This report uses the crown as a lever arm and conveys pressure to the bone around the implant.[26] This transmitted pressure may result in bone resorption around the implant[27] or complications in implant components.

Contrary to initial concerns, the use of ultrashort implants in clinical trials has yielded satisfactory results that, compared to conventional implants, had fewer complications in the atrophic arch during the 1-year follow-up period.[28] [29]

According to the conventional definition, various studies examined the use of implants shorter than 10 mm.[30] [31] However, they did not report significant survival rate results compared to implants longer than 10 mm in long-term follow-ups[32] [33] because implants of 6 mm or shorter than 6 mm have not been systematically evaluated over a follow-up period of more than 5 years; this study aimed to assess and identify studies that report patients' survival rates, BL rates, and prosthesis adverse events. The following hypotheses were also examined: firstly, short implants have a survival rate of 5 years, and secondly, short implants reduce the side effects of the prosthesis.

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) protocols were used to achieve standards for reporting systematic reviews in the search process.[34] [35]

PICO

The research question was, “P” or patient, including people who have used implants of 6 mm length or below for at least 60 months. “I” or intervention was the presence of an implant with a size of 6 mm or less in the mouth. “C” or comparison was in terms of the location of the implant, the connections, and the level of the tissue and bone implants. “O” or outcome was short implant survival rate, prosthetic side effects, BL rate, tissue level and bone level comparison, and patient reports.[36]

Search Strategy and Resources of Information

Electronic databases such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were searched. Another manual search covering the period to 2023 was also conducted manually in dental journals. In the articles obtained from this search, the following variables were extracted: implant survival rate, the average bone surface area around the implant, and technical complications related to implant components and/or prosthetic restoration structure.

The systematic literature search was performed with the following search terms:

(1) MEDLINE: (short [All Field] AND implants [All Field] AND English [All Field] AND (Randomized Controlled Trials) AND “Humans” [Mesh Terms]); (2) Scopus: short AND implants AND Randomized Controlled Trials AND [English]; (3) Cochrane: short dental implants AND Trials

The search results were obtained in an electronic database selected by two independent researchers. Two investigators chose the studies based on the title and content of the summary. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third researcher to solve the problem. Selected papers for the evaluation were reviewed, and their reference list was concerned, after the initial review of the selected articles, due to the significant heterogeneity in the type of study design, and data collection methods between studies, at the discretion of the author, quantitative data analysis and meta-analysis were not performed. Therefore, descriptive data were analyzed.

This study only contains longitudinal prospective, retrospective, or randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which examined the length of the implant, and the average follow-up period of 5 years and was written in English.

Result

Study Selection

As a result of this research, 977 papers were identified, and 52 studies were chosen to examine and study the full text. Of these, only nine articles conformed to this systematic review's inclusion and exclusion criteria[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] ([Fig. 1]).

Fig. 1 Flow charts for the studies were identified, displayed, and included in the study.

Quality Evaluation

[Fig. 2] summarizes the results of the risk of bias in selected studies. Of the nine chosen studies, six were RCTs, and the three were non-RCTs. However, two RCT had a low risk of bias, three studies had a moderate risk of bias, and one study had a high risk of bias. Non-RCT studies were assessed based on the Newcastle OTAWA scale.

Fig. 2 Risk of bias for (a) RCT and (b) non-RCTs.

Characteristics of Selected Articles

The table shows the characteristics of the selected articles. Information about the mandible and maxilla were evaluated separately. Studies had a follow-up period of 5 years ([Tables 1] and [2]).

Table 1 A summary of the most important information of the selected studies

Study			Population		Implant
	Design	Follow-up (Y)	Patients (n)	Mean age (Y)	Total	Location	Length (mm)	Diameter (mm)
Romeo et al 2014[45]	RCTs	6	24	50	26	Maxilla (5) Mandible (21)	6	Wide (26)
Rossi et al 2015[44]	RCTs	5	35	51	40	Maxilla (15) Mandible (25) Premolars (14) Molars (26)	6	Regular (19) Wide (21)
Slotte et al 2015[37]	Prospective	5	32	64	86	Mandible (86)	4	Regular (86)
Rossi et al 2016[38]	RCTs	5	45	48.4	30	Maxilla (12) Mandible (18) Premolars (17) Molars (13)	6	Regular (30)
Villarinho et al 2017[39]	Prospective cohort	6	20	52	46	Maxilla (23) Mandible (23) Premolars (12) Molars (34)	6	Regular (46)
Rossi et al, 2017[40]	Prospective cohort	5	20	55	40	Maxilla (14) Mandible (26)	6	Regular (n = 29) Wide (n = 11)
Thoma 2015[42]	RCT	5	44	50	60	Maxilla (60)	6	Regular (n = 60)
Naenni 2018[43]	RCT	5	40	58.2	40	Maxilla (12) Mandible (28)	6	Regular (n = 40)
Thoma 2021[41]	RCT	5	26	67.5	48	Maxilla (19) Mandible (29)	6	Regular (n = 48)

Abbreviation: RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Table 2 Characteristic of included study

Study	Type of loading	Type of retention	Type of prosthesis	Type of implant	Type of connection	outcome
			(if partial, number of units per restoration)			Failure (early: late)	Marginal bone loss in the last follow-up (mean± SD)
Romeo et al, 2014[45]	Late	cemented	Single	Tissue level	Internal	1:0	0.4 ± 0.34 mm
Rossi et al, 2015[44]	Late	cemented	Single	Tissue level	Internal	2:0	0.43 ± 0.49 mm
Slotte et al, 2015[37]	Late	Screw retained	3 to 4 splinted	Tissue level	Internal	0:6	0.53 mm
Rossi et al, 2016[38]	Late	Screw retained	Single	Tissue level	Internal	1:4	0.14 mm
Villarinho et al, 2017[39]	Late	Screw retained	Single	Tissue level	Internal	4:0	0.3 ± 0.5 mm
Rossi et al, 2017[40]	Early	Screw retained	2 to 3	Tissue level	Internal	0:4	0.3 ± 0.4 mm
Thoma et al, 2018[42]	Late	Screw retained	1 unit	Bone level	Internal	0:1	0.54 ± 0.87 mm
Naenni et al, 2018[43]	Late	Screw retained	1 unit	Tissue level	Internal	0:4	-0.29 mm
Thoma et al, 2021[41]	Late	Screw retained	1 unit with cantilever / 2 single unit	Bone level	internal	0:2	0.29 ± 0.63 mm 0.17 ± 0.59 mm

Specifications of Implants in Terms of Location and Size

The number of implants shorter than 6 mm was included and examined. The total number of implants with 6 mm lengths was 416, respectively. There was not any implant with lengths below 6 mm. The typical widths were regular (358), wide (58), and 4.2 mm, respectively. Studies were performed on implant restorations with screws retained in the seven studies,[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] while cemented restorations were in the two studies.[44] [45]

Bone Loss Analysis

Several studies examined the rate of BL using a standardized radiographic method, but many studies did not follow the standard form. Therefore, this systematic study evaluated the amount of BL in nine studies[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] from the implant insertion to the final follow-up.

In the first year of BL follow-up, seven studies reported BL, and two studies reported bone growth. Nevertheless, only four studies reported BL during follow-up intervals in the 5th years and three studies reported bone growth. However, due to the lack of sufficient information from the initial studies, it was impossible to analyze the number of changes in bone surface annually. For example, one study reported changes in BL at the end of the follow-up period. Therefore, a table is the only way to report bone changes during follow-up ([Table 3]).

Table 3 The bone loss rate of implants during years of follow-up

Study	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
Romeo et al, 2014	−0.18	−	−	−	−0.31
Rossi et al, 2015	−0.23	−0.2	−0.07	−0.1	−0.1
Slotte et al, 2015	−0.44	−0.13	+0.02	−	+0.02
Rossi et al, 2016	−0.13	−0.02	−0.03	+0.01	+0.03
Villarinho et al, 2017	−0.2	−0.1	−0.1	−0.2	−
Rossi et al, 2017	−0.2	−0.04	−0.03	−	−0.02
Thoma et al, 2018	0.27	−	0.45	−	0.54
Naenni et al, 2018	−0.18	−	−0.35	−	−0.29
Thoma et al, 2021	0.03 0.2		0.32 0.46		0.29 0.17

Generally, during the follow-up of 5 years, the amount of BL in implants shorter than 6 mm varied between −0.54 mm (BL) and + 0.29 (bone growth). Also, most cases of BL occurred in the first year of implant placement, and in the following years, BL was decreased ([Table 3]). While comparing implants implanted at tissue or bone level, the most BL occurred in bone level implants in the first year of follow-up. Finally, the rate of bone resorption in implants with internal and external connections was not significantly different during the1-year follow-up.

Survival Rate

The survival rates in implants shorter than 6 mm was 96.1, 95, 93.02, 83.33, 91.30, 90, 98.33, 90, and 95.83. Most of the studies had more than 90% survival rate.

Prosthesis Side Effects

Side effects of prostheses are shown in [Table 2]. The most common complication of prostheses was screw loosening, which was reported. Subsequent complications were re-cementation and fracture in the prosthetic case.

Discussion

Short implants are usually utilized in the posterior areas because in these areas, due to the presence of the alveolar nerve, the upper sinus, and the curvature of the tongue, using implants of average and standard length can be challenging.[46] Moreover, in the event of serious complications necessitating fixture removal, short implants would need a simpler removal method, decreasing BL and facilitating the possibility of rehabilitating the same location with a new implant. In addition, the possible use of short implants in sites able to accommodate longer fixtures may provide additional advantages in addition to their regular usage in atrophic locations. In fact, such a rehabilitative method does not include the aesthetic, practical, and physiological difficulties often associated with greater interarch distance and higher C:I.[47] In this case, using a short implant can cause fewer complications and is a good option.

However, despite positive reports on the performance of implants shorter than 6 mm, the effectiveness of these implants is still in doubt due to the lack of studies with sufficient follow-up time. These types of implants should be investigated in terms of force distribution and its effect on the surrounding bone, and their effectiveness in different types of restorations with a different number of units and different stress distribution levels should be investigated. Completeness of follow-up is a prerequisite for dependable outcome evaluation and should be disclosed systematically.[48] For this reason, the current study examines single crowns and short Fixed Partial Denture (FPDs) supported by short implant in long follow-ups to clarify the ambiguities in the long-term function of implants with a maximum length of 6 mm.

RCT studies with more than 5 years of follow-up have increased the validity and created a better image of implants shorter than 6 mm.[42] [43]

Long implants were used for a long time to reduce the stress on the bone around the implant and finally became a standard of care. However, this scenario is debatable due to the use of rough structures on the surface of these implants. The results of subsequent studies showed that the survival rate of implants with a length of less than 10 mm is similar to that of larger implants. A survival percentage higher than 90% is acceptable during a 5-year follow-up period and can justify its replacement. The results of a study which focus solely on upper jaw reported that the survival rate of short implants after a 5-year follow-up period was 98.33%.[42] However, in another study, the same results were obtained for implants shorter than 6 mm and conventional implants in the mandible, which is 93.02% and confirms the success of short implants in the mandible.[37] Two studies concluded that short implant supported single crowns or short FPDs showed a satisfying result.[39] [40] In 2015, Rossi concluded that 6 mm implants with moderately rough surface supporting showed low marginal bone resorption while supporting single crowns.[44] The lowest survival rate was in a study by Rossi in 2016, which showed a 83.33% survival rate. In the most recent study by Thoma in 2021, short dental implants supporting 1 or 2 units showed a survival rate of 95.83%.[41]

However, some researchers reported that in shorter implants, the C:I ratio is rising, and as a result, the potential for bone resorption around the implant can increase.[49] According to one study, crown length increases the risk more than implant length. The analysis carried out in this study showed that reducing the C:I index by reducing the size of the crown considerably reduces stress on the bone around the implant.[50] Moreover, the type of crown material and adhesion characteristics has to be considered.[51]

More follow-up studies can be helpful in order to improve trustworthiness, as the force distribution is a crucial factor to avoid tension and deformation of oral appliances.[52] [53] For example, it is better to check the presence of bruxism in cases of success. In addition, there is a need for uniform standard definitions for prosthesis side effects between studies. Finally, in future studies, it is necessary to investigate the force distribution on short implants that effectively changes bone density.

Conclusion

Due to the limitations of this review, implants shorter than 6 mm generally showed an acceptable survival rate, which was higher in the mandible. Several studies examined bone resorption over a follow-up period of more than 5 years, and most studies examined bone resorption only in the first year. In addition, the amount of BL on the implant surface was higher than on the tissue surface, but internal and external connections did not play a role in BL. Although it was infrequent, the most common side effect of implants shorter than 6 mm was screw loosening. Also, the rate of adverse effects and prosthetic failures in nonsplinted implants was higher than in splinted.

Conflict of Interest

None declared

• References

• 1 Naert I, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Darius P. A six-year prosthodontic study of 509 consecutively inserted implants for the treatment of partial edentulism. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67 (02) 236-245
• 2 Horikawa T, Odatsu T, Itoh T. et al. Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants with at least 25 years' function. Int J Implant Dent 2017; 3 (01) 42
• 3 Urban IA, Jovanovic SA, Lozada JL. Vertical ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration (GBR) in three clinical scenarios prior to implant placement: a retrospective study of 35 patients 12 to 72 months after loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 (03) 502-510
• 4 Schwartz-Arad D, Ofec R, Eliyahu G, Ruban A, Sterer N. Long term follow-up of dental implants placed in autologous Onlay bone graft. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18 (03) 449-461
• 5 Fontana F, Maschera E, Rocchietta I, Simion M. Clinical classification of complications in guided bone regeneration procedures by means of a nonresorbable membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011; 31 (03) 265-273
• 6 Kollek NJ, Pérez-Albacete Martínez C, Granero Marín JM, Maté Sánchez de Val JE. Prospective clinical study with new materials for tissue regeneration: a study in humans. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (03) 727-734
• 7 Uijlenbroek HJJ, Liu Y, Wismeijer D. Gaining soft tissue with a hydrogel soft tissue expander: a case report. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (01) 255-260
• 8 Hashemi S, Tabatabaei S, Fathi A, Asadinejad SM, Atash R. Tooth Graft: an umbrella overview. Eur J Dent 2024; 18: 41-54
• 9 Pieri F, Forlivesi C, Caselli E, Corinaldesi G. Short implants (6mm) vs. vertical bone augmentation and standard-length implants (≥9mm) in atrophic posterior mandibles: a 5-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 46 (12) 1607-1614
• 10 Garaicoa-Pazmiño C, Suárez-López del Amo F, Monje A. et al. Influence of crown/implant ratio on marginal bone loss: a systematic review. J Periodontol 2014; 85 (09) 1214-1221
• 11 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 (11) 1700-1718
• 12 Monje A, Fu JH, Chan HL. et al. Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Periodontol 2013; 84 (12) 1783-1791
• 13 Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. Clinical performance of short dental implants supporting single crown restoration in the molar-premolar region: cement versus screw retention. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (04) 969-976
• 14 Malchiodi L, Ricciardi G, Salandini A, Caricasulo R, Cucchi A, Ghensi P. Influence of crown-implant ratio on implant success rate of ultra-short dental implants: results of a 8- to 10-year retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24 (09) 3213-3222
• 15 Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Impact of platform switching on peri-implant bone remodeling around short implants in the posterior region, 1-year results from a split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16 (01) 70-80
• 16 Anitua E, Alkhraist MH, Piñas L, Begoña L, Orive G. Implant survival and crestal bone loss around extra-short implants supporting a fixed denture: the effect of crown height space, crown-to-implant ratio, and offset placement of the prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (03) 682-689
• 17 Anitua E, Piñas L, Orive G. Retrospective study of short and extra-short implants placed in posterior regions: influence of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone loss. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 (01) 102-110
• 18 Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29 (Suppl. 03) 197-212 , discussion 232–233
• 19 Kreissl ME, Gerds T, Muche R, Heydecke G, Strub JR. Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (06) 720-726
• 20 Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clinical oral implants research 2004; 15 (04) 401-412
• 21 Barbier L, Schepers E. Adaptive bone remodeling around oral implants under axial and nonaxial loading conditions in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12 (02) 215-223
• 22 Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Bone level changes proximal to oral implants supporting fixed partial prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13 (02) 162-168
• 23 Wennerberg A, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. Influence of occlusal factors on treatment outcome: a study of 109 consecutive patients with mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses opposing maxillary complete dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2001; 14 (06) 550-555
• 24 Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 (Suppl. 02) 8-18
• 25 Frost HMA. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod 2004; 74 (01) 3-15
• 26 Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15 (04) 401-412
• 27 Misch CE, Suzuki JB, Misch-Dietsh FM, Bidez MW. A positive correlation between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss: literature support. Implant Dent 2005; 14 (02) 108-116
• 28 Felice P, Barausse C, Pistilli V, Piattelli M, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long × 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. 3-year post-loading results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2018; 11 (02) 175-187
• 29 Pistilli R, Felice P, Cannizzaro G. et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year post-loading results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2013; 6 (04) 359-372
• 30 Cannizzaro G, Felice P, Minciarelli AF, Leone M, Viola P, Esposito M. Early implant loading in the atrophic posterior maxilla: 1-stage lateral versus crestal sinus lift and 8 mm hydroxyapatite-coated implants. A 5-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2013; 6 (01) 13-25
• 31 Maló PS, de Araújo Nobre MA, Lopes AV, Ferro AS. Retrospective cohort clinical investigation of a dental implant with a narrow diameter and short length for the partial rehabilitation of extremely atrophic jaws. J Oral Sci 2017; 59 (03) 357-363
• 32 Ravidà A, Wang I-C, Sammartino G. et al. Prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla, short (≤ 6 mm) or long (≥ 10 mm) dental implants? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis: Naples Consensus Report Working Group A. Implant Dent 2019; 28 (06) 590-602
• 33 Ravidà A, Barootchi S, Askar H, Suárez-López Del Amo F, Tavelli L, Wang H-L. Long-term effectiveness of extra-short (≤ 6 mm) dental implants: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (01) 68-84
• 34 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (04) 264-269 , W64
• 35 Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA. et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1013-1020
• 36 Stone PW. Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl Nurs Res 2002; 15 (03) 197-198
• 37 Slotte C, Grønningsaeter A, Halmøy AM. et al. Four-millimeter-long posterior-mandible implants: 5-year outcomes of a prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 (Suppl. 02) e385-e395
• 38 Rossi F, Botticelli D, Cesaretti G, De Santis E, Storelli S, Lang NP. Use of short implants (6 mm) in a single-tooth replacement: a 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27 (04) 458-464
• 39 Villarinho EA, Triches DF, Alonso FR, Mezzomo LAM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RSA. Risk factors for single crowns supported by short (6-mm) implants in the posterior region: A prospective clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19 (04) 671-680
• 40 Rossi F, Lang NP, Ricci E, Ferraioli L, Marchetti C, Botticelli D. 6-mm-long implants loaded with fiber-reinforced composite resin-bonded fixed prostheses (FRCRBFDPs). A 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (12) 1478-1483
• 41 Thoma DS, Wolleb K, Schellenberg R, Strauss FJ, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE. Two short implants versus one short implant with a cantilever: 5-Year results of a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2021; 48 (11) 1480-1490
• 42 Thoma DS, Haas R, Tutak M, Garcia A, Schincaglia GP, Hämmerle CH. Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: demographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42 (01) 72-80
• 43 Naenni N, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR. et al. Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2018; 97 (08) 887-892
• 44 Rossi F, Lang NP, Ricci E, Ferraioli L, Marchetti C, Botticelli D. Early loading of 6-mm-short implants with a moderately rough surface supporting single crowns—a prospective 5-year cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (04) 471-477
• 45 Romeo E, Storelli S, Casano G, Scanferla M, Botticelli D. Six-mm versus 10-mm long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior edentulous jaws: a 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014; 7 (04) 371-381
• 46 Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH, Yeh CY, Rudek I, Wang HL. Cross-sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22 (02) 201-206
• 47 Guida L, Annunziata M, Esposito U, Sirignano M, Torrisi P, Cecchinato D. 6-mm-short and 11-mm-long implants compared in the full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: a 3-year multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31 (01) 64-73
• 48 von Allmen RS, Weiss S, Tevaearai HT. et al. Completeness of follow-up determines validity of study findings: results of a prospective repeated measures cohort study. PLoS One 2015; 10 (10) e0140817
• 49 Rangert BR, Sullivan RM, Jemt TM. Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12 (03) 360-370
• 50 Wang T-M, Leu L-J, Wang J, Lin L-D. Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: a numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17 (02) 231-237
• 51 Fathi A, Hashemi S, Tabatabaei S, Mosharraf R, Atash R. Adhesion to zirconia: an umbrella review. Int J Adhes Adhes 2023; 122: 103322
• 52 Grande F, Cesare PM, Mochi Zamperoli E, Gianoli CM, Mollica F, Catapano S. Evaluation of tension and deformation in a mandibular toronto bridge anchored on three fixtures using different framework materials, abutment systems, and loading conditions: a FEM analysis. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (04) 1097-1105
• 53 Vieira FR, Bitencourt SB, Rosa CDDRD, Vieira AB, Santos DMD, Goiato MC. Influence of different restoring materials on stress distribution in prosthesis on implants: a review of finite element studies. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (01) 1-6

Publication History

Article published online:
17 August 2023