BACKGROUND: The use of narrow-diameter implants has been proposed to restore small edentulous spans, thus avoiding extensive bone augmentation procedures and reducing the surgical complexity of implant rehabilitations. Although success rates of narrow-diameter implants have already been analyzed in the literature, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no meta-analysis based on prospective and randomized controlled trials has been performed. The aim of this study is to analyze the survival rates of narrow-diameter implants compared with standard or wide-diameter implants. METHODS: An electronic search from three databases and a hand search in implant-related journals of studies published in English before September 1, 2012 were performed. Prospective human clinical studies with at least 10 implants and a follow-up period of 1 year were included in the meta-analysis. Implants were divided into two groups based on their diameters. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 484 articles, of which 49 were evaluated in full text for eligibility. Finally, 16 studies were chosen and separated into two groups: 1) implants of diameter <3.3 mm (group 1) and 2) implants of diameter ≥3.3 mm (group 2). A meta-analysis performed for groups 1 and 2 showed survival rates of 75% and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that narrower implants (<3.3 mm) had significantly lower survival rates compared with wider implants (≥3.3 mm). Other variables, such as type of prosthesis, implant surface, and timing of prosthetic loading, were found to have influenced the implant survival rates.
BACKGROUND: The use of narrow-diameter implants has been proposed to restore small edentulous spans, thus avoiding extensive bone augmentation procedures and reducing the surgical complexity of implant rehabilitations. Although success rates of narrow-diameter implants have already been analyzed in the literature, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no meta-analysis based on prospective and randomized controlled trials has been performed. The aim of this study is to analyze the survival rates of narrow-diameter implants compared with standard or wide-diameter implants. METHODS: An electronic search from three databases and a hand search in implant-related journals of studies published in English before September 1, 2012 were performed. Prospective human clinical studies with at least 10 implants and a follow-up period of 1 year were included in the meta-analysis. Implants were divided into two groups based on their diameters. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 484 articles, of which 49 were evaluated in full text for eligibility. Finally, 16 studies were chosen and separated into two groups: 1) implants of diameter <3.3 mm (group 1) and 2) implants of diameter ≥3.3 mm (group 2). A meta-analysis performed for groups 1 and 2 showed survival rates of 75% and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that narrower implants (<3.3 mm) had significantly lower survival rates compared with wider implants (≥3.3 mm). Other variables, such as type of prosthesis, implant surface, and timing of prosthetic loading, were found to have influenced the implant survival rates.
Authors: Aritza Brizuela-Velasco; Esteban Pérez-Pevida; Antonio Jiménez-Garrudo; Francisco Javier Gil-Mur; José María Manero; Miquel Punset-Fuste; David Chávarri-Prado; Markel Diéguez-Pereira; Francesca Monticelli Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Alberto Monje; Michael A Pikos; Hsun-Liang Chan; Fernando Suarez; Jordi Gargallo-Albiol; Federico Hernández-Alfaro; Pablo Galindo-Moreno; Hom-Lay Wang Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 3.411