## 4 Discussion
### Short Implants and Implant Stability  
There is no consensus in the literature concerning its definition of a short implant but generally, the implants ranging from 6 to 10 mm have been considered as short implants. Authors have defined short implants as \(\leq\)7 mm [6,27], \(\leq\)8 mm [28], \(\leq\)10 mm [29,30], or \(\leq\)11 mm [31] long. Our study placed 6.6, 7.3, or 8.5 mm implants to the experiment group to compare with standard 10 mm implant group as a control. It is generally claimed that short implants have been associated with lower survival rates than standard length implants [32,33]. However, more recent studies revealed no apparent difference in performances between short and long implants, and suggested that the use of short implants may be a viable and effective alternative treatment option [17,34]. These results seem to be due to the technical innovations in both the surface characteristics and geometry (macro- and micro-) design of the implant, which helped to compensate for the unfavorable crown-to-implant ratio and lower surface area available for bone to implant contact [35]. A study performed by [PERSON] et al. [36] concluded that the immediate loading of short implants is not a risk factor for treatment success and this could be related to the good bone quality and the achievement of adequate primary stability. [PERSON] et al. [37] have demonstrated that high survival rates for both the implants and the prostheses could be achieved after 5-10 years for short SLA implants (intra-bony length \(\leq\)8 mm) supporting single crowns, without severe marginal bone loss \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control** & **Experimental** & \\  & **Neobiotech CMI IS-III** & **Neobiotech CMI IS-III** & \\  & **Active\({}^{\circledotimes}\) Long Implant** & **Active\({}^{\circledotimes}\) Short Implant** & \\ \hline Participant number & 19 & 27 & \\ \hline Parameters & Mean \(\pm\) SD (mm) & Mean \(\pm\) SD (mm) & \(p\)-value \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline Plaque index & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 0.168 \\ Calculus index & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.02 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.465 \\ Sulcus bleeding index & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.051 \\ Pocket Depth & 3.38 \(\pm\) 0.63 & 3.31 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 0.760 \\ Width of keratinized & 2.17 \(\pm\) 0.54 & 2.18 \(\pm\) 0.42 & 0.928 \\ mucosa (mm) & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) The \(p\)-values were calculated using the Mann–Whitney test.  
Plaque index: score 0, no detection of plaque; score 1, plaque only recognized by running a probe across the smooth marginal surface of the implant; score 2, plaque can be seen by the naked eye; score 3, abundance of soft matter.  
Calculus index: score 0, no detection of calculus; score 1, supragnigrayl calculus covering \(\leq\) 1/3 exposed tooth surface; score 2, supragnigrayl calculus covering \(>\) 1/3 but \(<\) 2/3 tooth surface, flecks of subgingnival calculus in cervical margin; score 3, supragnigrayl calculus covering \(>\) 2/3 surface, continuous band of subgingnival calculus.  
Sulcus bleeding index: score 0, no bleeding when a periodontal probe is passed along the gingival margin adjacent to the implant; score 1, isolated bleeding spot visible; score 2, blood forms a confluent red line on margin; score 3, heavy or profuse bleeding.  
SD, standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of peri-implant soft tissue parameters between the long and short implants after 1-year follow-up. and complications. They recommended, however, that short implants in type IV bone sites should be applied with caution. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2018) also stressed the importance of surgical preparation, which conforms to bone quality and careful patient selection in terms of biomechanical conditions for short implant. Along with that, in a review performed by [PERSON] et al. [PERSON] et al. (2018), primary stability seems to be considered of paramount importance for immediate loading.