Eik Schiegnitz1, Bilal Al-Nawas1. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Narrow-diameter implants (NDI) are claimed to be a reasonable alternative to bone augmentation procedures. The aim of this comprehensive literature review was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the implant survival of NDI and standard diameter implants (SDI) and to provide recommendations and guidelines for application of NDI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An extensive systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. NDI were classified into Category 1 (implant diameter <3.0 mm, "mini-implants"), Category 2 (implant diameter 3-3.25 mm) and Category 3 (implant diameters 3.3-3.5 mm). Clinical studies at all levels of evidence with at least 10 patients included and a follow-up time of at least 12 months were included. The primary outcome criterion was the survival rates of NDI. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were identified for qualitative and 16 studies for quantitative synthesis. Quality assessment illustrated a high risk of bias for the included literature. Mean implant survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for Categories 1, 2 and 3. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant lower implant survival of Category 1 NDI compared to SDI ([OR], 4.54; [CI], 1.51-13.65). For Category 2 and Category 3, no statistical significant differences in implant survival were seen compared to SDI ([OR], 1.06; [CI], 0.31-3.61 and [OR], 1.19; [CI], 0.83-1.70). CONCLUSION: NDI of Category 1 performed statistically significantly worse than SDI and were mainly described for the rehabilitation of the highly atrophic maxilla or mandible. Category 2 and Category 3 NDI showed no difference in implant survival compared to SDI. Category 2 NDI were mostly used for the rehabilitation of limited interdental spaces in anterior single-tooth restorations. NDI of Category 3 were described in all regions, including posterior single-tooth restorations. However, resilient long-term data and data on the possible risk of biological and technical complications with wide platform teeth on NDI are missing so far.
OBJECTIVES: Narrow-diameter implants (NDI) are claimed to be a reasonable alternative to bone augmentation procedures. The aim of this comprehensive literature review was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the implant survival of NDI and standard diameter implants (SDI) and to provide recommendations and guidelines for application of NDI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An extensive systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. NDI were classified into Category 1 (implant diameter <3.0 mm, "mini-implants"), Category 2 (implant diameter 3-3.25 mm) and Category 3 (implant diameters 3.3-3.5 mm). Clinical studies at all levels of evidence with at least 10 patients included and a follow-up time of at least 12 months were included. The primary outcome criterion was the survival rates of NDI. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were identified for qualitative and 16 studies for quantitative synthesis. Quality assessment illustrated a high risk of bias for the included literature. Mean implant survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for Categories 1, 2 and 3. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant lower implant survival of Category 1 NDI compared to SDI ([OR], 4.54; [CI], 1.51-13.65). For Category 2 and Category 3, no statistical significant differences in implant survival were seen compared to SDI ([OR], 1.06; [CI], 0.31-3.61 and [OR], 1.19; [CI], 0.83-1.70). CONCLUSION: NDI of Category 1 performed statistically significantly worse than SDI and were mainly described for the rehabilitation of the highly atrophic maxilla or mandible. Category 2 and Category 3 NDI showed no difference in implant survival compared to SDI. Category 2 NDI were mostly used for the rehabilitation of limited interdental spaces in anterior single-tooth restorations. NDI of Category 3 were described in all regions, including posterior single-tooth restorations. However, resilient long-term data and data on the possible risk of biological and technical complications with wide platform teeth on NDI are missing so far.
Authors: Gerardo Pellegrino; Giuseppe Lizio; Francesco Basile; Luigi Vito Stefanelli; Claudio Marchetti; Pietro Felice Journal: Methods Protoc Date: 2020-11-05
Authors: Edmara T P Bergamo; Everardo N S de Araújo-Júnior; Adolfo C O Lopes; Paulo G Coelho; Abbas Zahoui; Ernesto B Benalcázar Jalkh; Estevam A Bonfante Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Edmara T P Bergamo; Abbas Zahoui; Raúl Bravo Barrera; Salah Huwais; Paulo G Coelho; Edward Dwayne Karateew; Estevam A Bonfante Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 3.932