132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23189293)
1. Efficacy and predictability of short dental implants (<8 mm): a critical appraisal of the recent literature.
Srinivasan M; Vazquez L; Rieder P; Moraguez O; Bernard JP; Belser UC
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(6):1429-37. PubMed ID: 23189293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. How successful are small-diameter implants? A literature review.
Sohrabi K; Mushantat A; Esfandiari S; Feine J
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 May; 23(5):515-25. PubMed ID: 22313216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Narrow-diameter implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Schiegnitz E; Al-Nawas B
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():21-40. PubMed ID: 30328192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Survival rates of short (6 mm) micro-rough surface implants: a review of literature and meta-analysis.
Srinivasan M; Vazquez L; Rieder P; Moraguez O; Bernard JP; Belser UC
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 May; 25(5):539-45. PubMed ID: 23413956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Narrow- (3.0 mm) Versus Standard-Diameter (4.0 and 4.5 mm) Implants for Splinted Partial Fixed Restoration of Posterior Mandibular and Maxillary Jaws: A 5-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.
Pieri F; Forlivesi C; Caselli E; Corinaldesi G
J Periodontol; 2017 Apr; 88(4):338-347. PubMed ID: 27858554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Survival rates of short dental implants (≤6 mm) compared with implants longer than 6 mm in posterior jaw areas: A meta-analysis.
Papaspyridakos P; De Souza A; Vazouras K; Gholami H; Pagni S; Weber HP
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():8-20. PubMed ID: 30328206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A targeted review of study outcomes with short (< or = 7 mm) endosseous dental implants placed in partially edentulous patients.
Hagi D; Deporter DA; Pilliar RM; Arenovich T
J Periodontol; 2004 Jun; 75(6):798-804. PubMed ID: 15295944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Role of implant diameter on long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior maxilla: a systematic review.
Javed F; Romanos GE
Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Jan; 19(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 25366871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Long-term outcome of one-piece implants. Part I: implant characteristics and loading protocols. A systematic literature review with meta-analysis.
Barrachina-Diez JM; Tashkandi E; Stampf S; Att W
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(2):503-18. PubMed ID: 23527353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review.
Wallace SS; Froum SJ
Ann Periodontol; 2003 Dec; 8(1):328-43. PubMed ID: 14971260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Survival of Implants Using the Osteotome Technique With or Without Grafting in the Posterior Maxilla: A Systematic Review.
Shi JY; Gu YX; Zhuang LF; Lai HC
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2016; 31(5):1077-88. PubMed ID: 27632263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Short implants: a descriptive study of 273 implants.
Sánchez-Garcés MA; Costa-Berenguer X; Gay-Escoda C
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Aug; 14(4):508-16. PubMed ID: 20977605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Early loading after 21 days of healing of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface: two-year results of a prospective two-center study.
Morton D; Bornstein MM; Wittneben JG; Martin WC; Ruskin JD; Hart CN; Buser D
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2010 Mar; 12(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 19744195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical outcome of Brånemark System implants of various diameters: a retrospective study.
Friberg B; Ekestubbe A; Sennerby L
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2002; 17(5):671-7. PubMed ID: 12381067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla Using Splinted Short Implants or Sinus Augmentation with Standard-Length Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Pieri F; Caselli E; Forlivesi C; Corinaldesi G
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2016; 31(5):1179-88. PubMed ID: 27632276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lemos CA; Ferro-Alves ML; Okamoto R; Mendonça MR; Pellizzer EP
J Dent; 2016 Apr; 47():8-17. PubMed ID: 26804969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Guljé F; Abrahamsson I; Chen S; Stanford C; Zadeh H; Palmer R
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Dec; 24(12):1325-31. PubMed ID: 22938573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Immediate versus conventional loading of post-extraction implants in the edentulous jaws.
Testori T; Zuffetti F; Capelli M; Galli F; Weinstein RL; Del Fabbro M
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2014 Dec; 16(6):926-35. PubMed ID: 23506353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. New approach towards mini dental implants and small-diameter implants: an option for long-term prostheses.
Gleiznys A; Skirbutis G; Harb A; Barzdziukaite I; Grinyte I
Stomatologija; 2012; 14(2):39-45. PubMed ID: 23037782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A randomized controlled clinical trial of two types of tapered implants on immediate loading in the posterior maxilla and mandible.
Kim YK; Lee JH; Lee JY; Yi YJ
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(6):1602-11. PubMed ID: 24278929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
