Page 28 - RCOE 25-1

FIguRA 27 y 28. Recuperación de la proyección del labio superior tanto de frente como en el perfil.
Dental Implants Supporting Single Crown Restoration in the Molar-Premolar Region: Cement Versus Screw Retention. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:969– 976.
10. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. Fifteen-Year Follow-up of Short Dental Implants inthe Completely Edentulous Jaw: Submerged Versus Nonsubmerged Healing. Implant Dent. 2019 Dec;28(6):551-555.
11. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. 15-year follow-up of short dental implants placed in the partially eden- tulous patient: Mandible Vs maxilla. Ann Anat. 2019Mar;222:88-93.
12. Anitua E, Piñas L, Begoña L, Orive G. Long-term retrospective evaluation of short implants in the
posterior areas: clinical results after 10-12 years. J Clin
Periodontol. 2014;41:404-11.
13. Anitua E, Saracho J, Begoña L, Alkhraisat MH.
Long-Term Follow-Up of 2.5-mm Narrow-Diameter Implants Supporting a Fixed Prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:769-77.
14. Anitua E, Errazquin JM, de Pedro J, Barrio P, Begoña L, Orive G. Clinicalevaluation of Tiny® 2.5- and 3.0-mm narrow-diameter implants as definitive implants in different clinical situations: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3:315-22.
15. Klein MO, Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl: 43-54.
FIguRA 29. Radiografía tras un año de seguimiento. Todo el tratamiento se mantiene estable sin pérdidas óseas.
Implantes estrechos BTI 3.0 en el tratamiento de atrofia horizontal y vertical severa del maxilar. Eduardo Anitua. et al. - 134 -