Dental Tribune Edição Portuguesa CASO CLÍNICO No. 2/2022 - junho | 33 3 mm para garantir um bom comportamento biomecânico do conjunto implante-próte- se, pois diâmetros inferiores a 3 mm podem gerar altas ten- sões no osso crestal e conse- quentemente a perda óssea ou do implante, sendo situações limites com piores condições de partida9,22-23. CONCLUSÕES. Os implantes de diâmetro e plataforma reduzidos podem ser utilizados previsivelmente para restaurações unitárias, des- de que exista um planeamento adequado e um diâmetro mí- nimo de 3 mm e um pilar de ponte, independentemente do seu diâmetro, caso seja necessá- rio para evitar técnicas de rege- neração óssea adicionais. BIBLIOGRAFIA. 1. Andersen E, Saxegaard E, Knutsen BM, Haanaes HR. A prospective clinical study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of nar- row-diameter threaded implants in the anterior region of the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Im- plants 2001; 16: 217-224. 2. Papadimitriou DE, Friedland B, Gannam C, Salari S, Gallucci GO. Narrow-Diameter versus Standard-Diameter Implants and Their Effect on the Need for Guided Bone Regenera- tion: A Virtual Three-Dimensional Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 3. Bryant SR, MacDonald-Jankowski D, Kim K. Does the type of implant prosthesis affect out- comes for the completely edentulous arch? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22 Supl:117- 39. 4. Ahn MR, An KM, Choi JH, Sohn DS. Im- mediate loading with mini dental implants in the fully edentulous mandible. Implant Dent. Dez 2004;13(4):367-72. 5. Upendran A, Gupta N, Salisbury HG. Den- tal Mini-Implants. 14 ago 2021. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; jan 2022. ter implants: A systematic review and meta-a- nalysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. Out 2018;29 Supl 16:21-40. 7. Grandi T, Svezia L, Grandi G. Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) su- pporting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior regions of mandible: one-year results from a prospective cohort study. Int J Implant Dent. 8 set 2017;3(1):43. 8. Klein MO, Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Sys- tematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Supl: 43-54. 9. Anitua E, Fernandez-de-Retana S, Ani- tua B, Alkhraisat MH. Long-Term Retros- pective Study of 3.0-mm-Diameter Implants Supporting Fixed Multiple Prostheses: Im- mediate Versus Delayed Implant Loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. Nov/Dez 2020;35(6):1229-1238. 10. Alkhraisat MH. Long-Term Follow-Up of 2.5-mm Narrow-Diameter Implants Suppor- ting a Fixed Prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Re- lat Res. Ago 2016;18(4):769-77. 11. Anitua E, Errazquin JM, de Pedro J, Bar- rio P, Begoña L, Orive G. Clinical evaluation of Tiny® 2.5- and 3.0-mm narrow-diameter implants as definitive implants in different cli- nical situations: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantol. Inverno 2010;3(4):315-22. 12. Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Narrow-dia- meter implants: A systematic review and me- ta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. Out 2018;29 Supl 16:21-40. 13. Mangano F, Shibli JA, Sammons RL, Ve- ronesi G, Piattelli A, Mangano C. Clinical out- come of narrow-diameter (3.3-mm) locking-ta- per implants: a prospective study with 1 to 10 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Im- plants. Mar-abr 2014;29(2):448-55. 14. Grandi T, Svezia L, Grandi G. Narrow implants (2.75 and 3.25 mm diameter) suppor- ting a fixed splinted prostheses in posterior re- gions of mandible: one-year results from a pros- pective cohort study. Int J Implant Dent. 8 set 2017;3(1):43. 15. Chiapasco M, Ferrini F, Casentini P, Ac- cardi S, Zaniboni M. Dental implants placed in expanded narrow edentulous ridges with the Extension Crests device. A 1-3 year mul- ticenter follow-up study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2006;17:265-72. 16. Nedir R., Bischof M, Briaux JM, Beyer S, Szmukler-Moncler 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 prívate practi- ce. Clinical Oral Implants Research 15:150-7. 6. Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Narrow-diame- 17. Storgard S, Terheyden H. Bone Augmenta- tion Procedures in Localized Defects in the Al- veolar Ridge: Clinical Results with Different Bone Grafts and Bone-Substitute Materials. JOMI 2009;24:218-36. 18. Blus C, Szmukler-Moncler S. Split-crest and immediate implant placement with ultra- -sonic bone surgery: a 3-year life-table analy- sis with 230 treated sites. Clin Oral Impl Res 2006;17:700-7. 19. Oyama K, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada J. Immediate provisionalization of 3.0-mm-diameter implants replacing single missing maxillary and mandibular incisors: 1-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. Jan-fev 2012;27(1):173-80. 20. Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Long-term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: A retros- pective study with at least 8-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. Jan 2018; 29:76-81. 21. Froum SJ, Shi Y, Fisselier F, Cho SC. Lon- g-Term Retrospective Evaluation of Success of Narrow-Diameter Implants in Esthetic Areas: A Consecutive Case Series with 3 to 14 Years Follow-up. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. Set/out 2017; 37(5):629-637. 22. Kolinski M, Hess P, Leziy S, Friberg B, Bel- lucci G, Trisciuoglio D, Wagner W, Moergel M, Pozzi A, Wiltfang J, Behrens E, Zechner W, Va- sak C, Weigl P. Immediate provisionalization in the esthetic zone: 1-year interim results from a prospective single-cohort multicenter study evaluating 3.0-mm-diameter tapered implants. Clin Oral Investig. Jul 2018;22(6):2299- 2308. 23. Anitua E, Larrazabal Saez de Ibarra N, Morales Martín I, Saracho Rotaeche L. In- fluence of Dental Implant Diameter and Bone Quality on the Biomechanics of Single-Crown Restoration. A Finite Element Analysis. Dent J (Basel). Set 2021 Corresponding author: Dr. Eduardo Anitua, Eduardo Anitua Foundation; C/ Jose Maria Cagigal 19, 01007 Vitoria, Spain; Phone: +34 945160653, e-mail: eduardo@fundacioneduar- doanitua.org.