a retrospective examine on 522 implants.Annals of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgical procedure

For quotation functions:
Dal Carlo L, Pasqualini ME, Carinci F, Corradini M, Vannini F, Nardone M, Linkow LI. A short historical past and tips of blade implant method: a retrospective examine on 522 implants. Annals of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgical procedure 2013 Feb 01;1(1):3.


L Dal Carlo1, ME Pasqualini2, F Carinci3*, M Corradini4, F Vannini5, LI Linkow7


Authors affiliations

(1) Non-public Follow, Venice, Italy

(2) Non-public Follow, Milano, Italy

(3) Division of D.M.C.C.C., Part of Maxillofacial and Plastic Surgical procedure, College of Ferrara, Ferrara 44100, Italy

(4) Non-public Follow, Trento, Italy

(5) Non-public Follow, Rome, Italy

(6) Ministry of Well being, Rome, Italy

(7) Perpetual NYU Chair in Implantology, New York, USA

* Corresponding creator E-mail:



Regardless of preliminary enthusiasm, blade implants have acquired unhealthy press over time on account of pretty excessive failure charges reported in some publications of non-users. The intention is to debate the strategies of blade implants to enhance the understanding of the method.

Supplies and strategies

A complete of 522 blades have been inserted in 20 years (1989–2009): 309 in females and 213 in males. The median age was 59 ± 11 years (min–max: 24–80 years).The implants have been inserted in deep and atrophic slim crests.


The success charge was 93.4% globally, 98.9% at 5 years, 89% at 8 years and 86.2% at 10 years.These information present excellent outcomes at 5 years, however barely extra failures at 8 and 10 years.


The blade implant is a sound therapeutic system helpful for treating circumstances corresponding to slim bone crest and scarce spongy bone within the decrease distal sector. They’ve demonstrated long-term survival. Nonetheless, to forestall failure, practitioners needs to be conscious that blade implants are usually not indicated in huge alveolar crests or in areas the place bone density is inadequate and that the implant can’t be positioned within the deep cortical layer.


The thought of endosseous blade implants was developed by L.I. Linkow and R. Roberts, however its unfold all around the scientific group should be attributed to Prof. Leonard Linkow, who printed it round 1968, thereby making it attainable to deal with partial or complete edentulism[1,2].

Blade implants can be utilized in any alveolar crest, however are significantly helpful within the thinnest, the place using root-form implants is tough and desires bone regeneration procedures. When the ridge is skinny, tricortical anchorage is essentially the most appropriate method, in accordance with Manenti[3], that’s the implant is stabilised by press-fit in each the inner and exterior bone cortex, in addition to the deep cortex (Figures 1 and a couple of). This situation represents the optimum to permit fast purposeful loading of provisional prosthesis.

Radiograph at 11 years of submerged blade implant positioned in zone 1.2 in 1993.

{Photograph} 7 years after becoming the prosthesis on the implant in Determine 1.

The unique surgical protocol of Linkow is predicated on the next easy steps:

• Choose the affected person accurately

• Think about basic well being situations

• Worth crestal dimension

• Open a flap to have an accurate ridge overview

• Carry out a line of little holes within the superficial cortical bone

• Join holes and insert blade implant as deep as attainable

• Gently bend implant abutment to achieve appropriate place in relation with the antagonist enamel

• Gently bend implant physique if obligatory

• Press the blade inside its implant web site until it reaches the proper place

• Management occlusal capabilities

Osseointegration of titanium blade implants has been confirmed by quite a few histological research. Determine 1 lets you recognize bone thickening across the neck and physique of a blade implant 11 years after surgical procedure.

Medical expertise exhibits that failures can happen when surgical protocol is just not adopted[4,5], implant kind is just not appropriate for affected person, tongue actions not considered[6,7,8], and the implant was utilized in an excessive amount of atrophic crestal bone. The intention of this examine was to supply a short historical past and tips of blade implant method.

Varieties of blade implants

Linkow’s authentic blade implant was carried out in several shapes in accordance with the anatomical web site of insertion. Subsequently, Linkow has developed quite a few enhancements to the form and floor of his system. At the start of the Seventies, Pasqualini proposed a ‘polymorphous’ blade implant, which may very well be modelled to swimsuit the most typical anatomical conformations and which, with its screw abutment, supplied for the primary time an answer to the issue of tongue-thrust throughout swallowing (inflicting the vast majority of post-surgical failures)[9]. A provisional abutment with a brief short-term screw-on cap needs to be changed with an extended one, 3–4 months after surgical procedure (Figures 3 and 4).

The information holes are joined, tracing the location for insertion of a Pasqualini screw-abutment blade implant.

Intra-oral radiograph carried out instantly after positioning the Pasqualini blade implant in Determine 4.

Many different authors have developed modifications to the form and prosthetic part: emergent, semi-emergent and submerged varieties[10,11,12,13,14,15,16].

Some great benefits of blade implants are as follows:

1. Risk to insert blades within the narrowest alveolar crests

2. Adaptability to the vast majority of anatomical conformations

3. Avoiding bone regeneration surgical procedure

4. Mechanical correction of parallelism throughout implant surgical procedure

5. Simple adaptation to the deep anatomical constructions by modifying the implant

6. Presence of quite a few contacts with deep cortical layer

7. Risk of inserting part of the implant under the intact cortex (as in contrast with endosseous distal extension (EDE) method)

8. Sufficient administration of hooked up gingiva throughout implant surgical procedure

9. Easy surgical method carried out with commonplace devices

The disadvantages of blade implants are as follows:

1. Invasion of adjoining bone websites with mesio-distally positioned blades

2. Poor adaptability to post-extraction alveolar websites

Biomechanical facets

The likelihood supplied by the surgical strategy of modelling the blade implant requires the operator to own expertise to guage the biomechanical suitability of the implant. Blade implant ought to have a root/crown depth ratio of 1:1[17].

This examine is concentrated on the strategies attributed to blade implants and their long-term reliability.

Supplies and strategies

This work conforms to the values laid down within the Declaration of Helsinki (1964). The protocol of this examine has been permitted by the related moral committee associated to our establishment during which it was carried out. All topics gave full knowledgeable consent to take part on this examine.

Surgical procedure commonplace protocol

Affected person’s anamnesis is obligatory. The preliminary phases of surgical procedure are primarily based on scientific and radiographic examinations. Written knowledgeable consent is obligatory. The affected person should be completely knowledgeable about remedy choices to know relative benefits and drawbacks.

The incision should be carried out to make sure satisfactory adherent gum across the prosthesis. To resolve concerning the exact place of the abutment, an intra-operatory surgical masks is required.

After incision, the flap is indifferent utilizing a periosteal elevator. In case of very skinny alveolar crest, flap lifting needs to be carried out cautiously attempting to not compromise blood provide to the underlying bone.

A line of small information holes on the floor of the crest needs to be designed utilizing a 0.9–1.0 mm gauge multi-blade metallic drill mounted on a turbine, or high-speed contra-angle (purple band) handpiece. These preferrred strains will function a information for the implant insertion (Determine 3). As a substitute of the drill, a piezoelectric scalpel can be utilized.

The mesio-distal dimensions of the implant web site should be calculated in relation to blade form, chosen on the idea of radiographic photos and the anatomy of the implant web site. If the bone is just not significantly dense, drill a barely shallower channel, in order that the implant can have larger main stability upon press-fitting. The implant web site needs to be traced with a sluggish motion of the wrist, following the longitudinal path of the crest; its depth needs to be enough to take care of a secure distance from the underlying anatomical constructions.

As soon as the mesio-distal implant web site has been bored and its depth checked utilizing a gauged probe, the implant will be inserted, making certain that its shoulder has been positioned at the least 2 mm under the superficial cortex. The implant is fitted in its web site utilizing pliers, and the mounting system needs to be tapped gently and safely (Determine 5).

Blade implant throughout implantation in zone 3.5.

The abutment neck needs to be surrounded by affected person’s gum of appropriate organic width (Figures 6 and seven).

The blade implant in its definitive place. The abutment reaches the bone crest.

On the left, notice the superb response of the mushy tissues across the blade implant in Figures 5 and 6.

The blade implant will be modified to completely swimsuit the crestal bone anatomy (Determine 1) and the physique will be curved to comply with the anatomical profile. If the abutment must be angled, this may be achieved mechanically, as much as most of 20°, earlier than the implant is positioned[18], utilizing two pair of metal pliers, thereby resolving beforehand any issues that would come up on account of incongruous abutment positioning.

The sutures ought to encompass the protruding abutment and never compromise the anatomy of papillae.

Submit-surgical protocol

After surgical procedure, sufferers are more likely to expertise slight swelling and regular post-surgical signs. 5 days of antibiotics is a precautionary measure to counsel.

Fast loading

The blade implant will be instantly loaded if satisfactory stability has been achieved. Anchoring the implant by means of two cortical layers and in touch with the deeper cortex ought to stabilise the implant.

Static and dynamic occlusion needs to be meticulously checked when short-term or everlasting crowns have been positioned.

Oral rehabilitation

Quite a few articles have demonstrated the long-term stability of all these implants[19,20,21,22,23,24,25] and documented their histological osteointegration, with out connective tissue within the bone/implant interface[26,27,28,29].

Strictly following the surgical and prosthetic protocols is step one in the direction of success. A comparative examine printed on-line in 2011[30] has proven that ‘blade implants have yielded the very best success charges at 5 years. The success charge decreases between the fifth and eighth 12 months.

Through the years, a number of authors have proposed modifications to the unique method[3,31]. For example, the method referred to as EDE is especially helpful for remedy of decrease posterior sectors with scarce bone density.

First utilized in 1993, the EDE was printed in 2001[31,32]. One of the best kind of blade implant to make use of is ramus blade, which was designed throughout the Seventies by Roberts and Linkow.

The method consists in performing the implant web site mesially, in order that the blade is step by step rotated distally till it reaches the distal border of implant web site.

On this method, virtually all the implants are positioned beneath the intact bone and mushy tissues. The presence of intact superficial bone tissue posterior to the abutment will be managed with an X-ray (Determine 8).

The blade has reached its ultimate vacation spot with the abutment in opposition to the distal border of the bone web site. Implant physique has been inserted between the superficial cortical bone and the superior facet of the alveolar canal. The cortical bone posterior to the abutment stays intact.

Because the implant should be surrounded by wholesome tissue (superficial cortex, higher cortex of alveolar canal, labial and lingual cortical layers), this sort of implant is extraordinarily steady even when it ought to instantly be loaded with a hard and fast prosthesis.

Certainly, this sort of process is characterised by wonderful mushy tissue response. The identical outcomes may very well be reached for ramus blade implants inserted utilizing this system.


Statistical information

Dr L. Dal Carlo inserted immediate-and deferred-load monoblock blade implants in slim alveolar crests since 1989[30]. The implants have been utilized in each deep and atrophic slim crests, and their success charge was 93.4% (488/522) globally, 98.9% (369/373) at 5 years, 89% (261/293) at 8 years and 86.2% (200/232) at 10 years. These information present excellent outcomes at 5 years, however barely extra failures at 8 and 10 years. This is because of some implants being inserted into significantly atrophic posterior sectors and unfavourable crown/root ratio.

The efficacy of blade implants has additionally been documented by an unbiased multi-centre randomised trial (Veterans Administration Cooperative Dental Implant Examine) carried out over a 5-year interval. This examine revealed 91.5% success in circumstances of partial edentulism handled utilizing mounted prostheses on blade implants[33].


The introduction of blade implants by Linkow within the Nineteen Sixties was an important innovation, inducing quite a few implantology neophytes to expertize this technique, nonetheless, with out having a transparent concept of indications. Due to this fact, the improper use of the blade implant was unsurprisingly the principle reason for failure of this system. As with every new method, particularly when practiced by non-experts, there have been failures which were significantly exalted in some printed experiences over time. In these experiences, implant insertion method, implant form and high quality of osseointegration have been significantly criticised.

On the similar time, nonetheless, scientific works have been printed about the advantages arising from using blade implants after failure of root-form implants[32,34,35,36]. We consider that it’s not scientifically appropriate to imagine that this system is ineffective on the idea of some case experiences. Certainly, a report of blade implants used as an alternative of a failed root-form implant[34] has additionally been printed; nonetheless, this doesn’t essentially imply that one method is superior to the opposite. Furthermore, in comparison with different implants inserted in the identical time frame, some research have proven that the blade implant offered long-term reliability[35,36]. Moreover, the opportunity of changing a failed blade implant with a brand new blade implant has been skilled by each the authors of this text and Covani et al.[37]. The concept that blade implants are poorly osteointegrated with respect to different sorts of implant has been successfully denied by histological examination, which has demonstrated complete absence of connective tissue interlayer[26,28]. With regard to this, there are quite a few scientific experiences that attest the reliability of blade implants.


The blade implant is a sound therapeutic system helpful for treating circumstances corresponding to slim bone crest and scarce spongy bone within the decrease distal sector. It may be used, in its mesio-distally prolonged kind, not solely within the higher and decrease posterior sectors but additionally to supply deep anchorage in posterior and anterior (aesthetic) sectors. Moreover, this technique presents wonderful response of the encircling mushy tissues. Nonetheless, to forestall failure, practitioners ought to know that blade implants are usually not indicated in huge alveolar crests, or in areas the place bone density is inadequate and the implant can’t be positioned within the deep cortical layer.

Authors contribution

All authors contributed to conception and design, manuscript preparation, learn and permitted the ultimate manuscript.


All authors abide by the Affiliation for Medical Ethics (AME) moral guidelines of disclosure.

  • 1. Linkow LI . The blade vent – a brand new dimension in endosseous implantology. Dent Ideas 1968 Spring;11(2):3-12.
  • 2. Linkow L . Endosseous bladevent implant – insertion tips. Dent Right now 1984;3.
  • 3. Manenti PA . La riabilitazione di creste mandibolari atrofiche distali con l’ausilio di lame bicorticali. 4° Congresso Internazionale A.I.S.I. 2002.
  • 4. Linkow L . The endosseous blade: a brand new dimension in oral implantology. Rev Trim Implant 1968;513-24.
  • 5. Pasqualini U, Pasqualini M. Treatise of implant dentistry. Ariesdue srl Carimate, Como 2009.
  • 6. Pasqualini U . Le patologie oclusali: Masson. 1993.
  • 7. Dal Carlo L . Tongue’s affect on the combination of endosseous implants. Physician OS 2003;14479-84.
  • 8. Dal Carlo L, Brinon EN. Influencia de la lengua en la integraciòn de los implantes intra-òseos. Rev Espanola Odontoestomatol Implante 2004 Apr–Jun;XII(2):102-11.
  • 9. Pasqualini U . Impianti Endoossei: La protezione dell’osteogenesi riparativa con la metodica del “moncone avvitato”. Tecnica personale Dental Cadmos, No. 8 1972.
  • 10. Viscido AJ . Submerged purposeful predictive endosteal blade implants. Oral Implantol 1974 Autumn;5(2):195-209.
  • 11. Babbush CA . Endosteal blade-vent implants. Quintessence Int Dent Dig 1976 Jun;7(6):9-15.
  • 12. Roberts RA . Sorts, makes use of, and analysis of the plate-form implant. J Oral Implantol 1996;22(2):111-8.
  • 13. Grafelmann HL . The newest developments in blade implant scientific functions. Dent Implantol Replace 1993 Mar;4(3):22-5.
  • 14. Muratori G . [Blade implants simplified]. Attual Dent 1986 Apr;2(13):44–5, 47, 49–51.
  • 15. Misch CE . Osteintegration and the submerged blade-vent implant. J Houston Dist Dent Soc 1988 Jan12-6.
  • 16. Misch C . Blade vent implant: nonetheless viable. Dent Right now 1989;834-42.
  • 17. Fallschussel GKH . Implantologia Odontoiatrica – Scienza e Tecnica Milano: Edizioni internazionali. 1986.
  • 18. Strietzel FP, Krueger H, Semmler R, Hopp M. Morphological examine of Osteoplate 2000 – extension implants after bending. Implant Dent 2000;9(3):261-7.
  • 19. Koch WL . Statistical analysis of success and causes for failure in 700 endosseous blade implants accomplished within the workplace. Oral Implantol 1974 Apr;1(1):108-35.
  • 20. Cranin AN, Rabkin MF, Garfinkel L. [Statistical evaluation of 952 endosseous implants]. Riv Ital Stomatol 1978 Jan;47(1):53-61.
  • 21. Ricciardi A . 9 years with Pasqualini implants – a full mandibular arch. J Oral Implantol 1980;9(1):83-94.
  • 22. Ferrer F, Castillo J, Rodriguez H, Guzman J, Korchin L, Cabanas R. Mandibular posterior blade implants. A twelve 12 months scientific and statistical analysis. Rev Odontol P R 1986 Jan–Jul;23(1):9-17.
  • 23. Smithloff M, Fritz M. The usage of bladevent implants in a particular inhabitants of partially edentulous adults: a 3 12 months report. Oral Implantol 1973 Autumn;4(2):145-73.
  • 24. Proussaefs P, Lozada J. Analysis of two vitallium blade-form implants retrieved after 13 to 21 years of perform: a scientific report. J Prosthet Dent 2002 Apr;87(4):412-5.
  • 25. Pasqualini ME . Implantoprotesi in un caso di monoedentulismo. Analisi retrospettiva a 38 anni. Dental Cadmos 2010 Dec;1065-70.
  • 26. Linkow LI, Donath Okay, Lemons JE. Retrieval analyses of a blade implant after 231 months of scientific perform. Implant Dent 1992 Spring;1(1):37-43.
  • 27. Bianchi A, Sanfilippo F, Zaffe D. Implantologia e Implantoprotesi. 1999.
  • 28. Di Stefano D, Iezzi G, Scarano A, Perrotti V, Piattelli A. Instantly loaded blade implant retrieved from a person after a 20-year loading interval: a histologic and histomorphometric case report. J Oral Implantol 2006 Aug;32171-6.
  • 29. Trisi P, Quaranta M, Emanuelli M, Piattelli A. A lightweight microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and laser scanning microscopy evaluation of retrieved blade implants after 7 to twenty years of scientific perform. A report of three circumstances. J Periodontol 1993 Might;64(5):374-8.
  • 30. Dal Carlo L . Studio Statistico su 6200 impianti inseriti in 20 anni in 2800 interventi 2011. .
  • 31. Dal Carlo L . Nuova tecnica per l’inserzione di impianti a lama: Estensione Distale Endoossea. Dental Cadmos 2001;1641-9.
  • 32. Dal Carlo L . Endosseous distal extension: a brand new method that’s helpful to resolve scientific circumstances characterised by scarceness of cancellous bone tissue within the decrease distal sector. Stomatologhieski J 2002;3.
  • 33. Krishan KK . Veterans administration cooperative dental implant examine – comparisons between mounted partial dentures supported by blade-vent implants and detachable partial dentures. Half IV: comparisons of affected person satisfaction between two remedy modalities. J Prosthet Dent 1991 Oct;66(4):517-29.
  • 34. Linkow LI, Wagner JR. Administration of implant-related issues and infections. J Oral Implantol 1993;19(4):321-35.
  • 35. Knöfler W, Knöfler A, Graf H-L. Survival evaluation of implants in a dental workplace over a interval of 10 years. Z Zahn Implantol 2004;20(4):.
  • 36. Strecha J, Jurkovic R, Siebert T, Prachar P, Bartakova S. Mounted bicortical screw and blade implants as a nonstandard resolution to an edentulous (toothless) mandible. Int J Oral Sci 2010 Jun;2(2):105-10.
  • 37. Covani U, Marconcini S, Crespi R, Barone A. Fast implant placement after elimination of a failed implant: a scientific and histological case report. J Oral Implantol 2009;35(4):189-95.

Licensee to OAPL (UK) 2013. Inventive Commons Attribution License (CC-BY)

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Most Popular

To Top