PURPOSE: To critically review the literature using mini-implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of growing patients and to analyze the survival rates and clinical behavior of mini-implants. STUDY SELECTION: Controlled clinical trials and case reports published in English, from January 2006 to October 2018, in a peer-reviewed journal in PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies using mini-implants for prosthetic rehabilitation in growing patients were included. Articles reporting mini-implants with a diameter greater than 3 mm, recruitment of adult participants, use of implants with other purposes than prosthodontic rehabilitation, and with a follow-up period shorter than 1 year, were excluded from the analysis. The selection was performed independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: The selection resulted in the inclusion of eight articles. Although the studies presented heterogeneous protocols and follow-ups (varying from 1 to 8 years), only one case of failure was reported, which corresponded to crown displacement. All rehabilitation procedures were performed in the anterior region using mini-implants with different diameters (1.3-2.9 mm) and lengths (9-14 mm). The prosthetic rehabilitation included individual crowns and/or overdentures. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-implant prosthetic rehabilitation seems to be a viable and promising option for provisional rehabilitation of growing patients, since it seems to preserve the bone structure while restoring function and esthetics until growth ceases, when then mini-implants can be replaced by standard implants.
PURPOSE: To critically review the literature using mini-implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of growing patients and to analyze the survival rates and clinical behavior of mini-implants. STUDY SELECTION: Controlled clinical trials and case reports published in English, from January 2006 to October 2018, in a peer-reviewed journal in PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies using mini-implants for prosthetic rehabilitation in growing patients were included. Articles reporting mini-implants with a diameter greater than 3 mm, recruitment of adult participants, use of implants with other purposes than prosthodontic rehabilitation, and with a follow-up period shorter than 1 year, were excluded from the analysis. The selection was performed independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: The selection resulted in the inclusion of eight articles. Although the studies presented heterogeneous protocols and follow-ups (varying from 1 to 8 years), only one case of failure was reported, which corresponded to crown displacement. All rehabilitation procedures were performed in the anterior region using mini-implants with different diameters (1.3-2.9 mm) and lengths (9-14 mm). The prosthetic rehabilitation included individual crowns and/or overdentures. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-implant prosthetic rehabilitation seems to be a viable and promising option for provisional rehabilitation of growing patients, since it seems to preserve the bone structure while restoring function and esthetics until growth ceases, when then mini-implants can be replaced by standard implants.