Use of narrow-diameter implants in the posterior jaw: a systematic review

Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis that the diameter of implants inserted in the posterior area affects implant survival rate, prosthetic survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD)).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of studies published until December 2021 was done on three databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane) independently by two authors. Clinical trials comparing implant survival rate, BoP, MBL and PPD among narrow diameter implants (NDI: ≥ 3.0 mm to < 3.75 mm) and regular diameter implants (RDI ≥ 3.75 mm to < 5 mm) were included. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies and to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for non-randomized ones. A pair-wise meta-analysis was conducted on the included studies.

RESULTS

Seven articles were included out of the 4291 identified from the digital research. Overall, a total of 939 implants were inserted (319 NDI, 620 RDI). Only one study was judged at serious risk of bias. No statistically significant difference was found in implant survival rate (risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI [0.98 to 1.04], P = 0.67)) while the difference was significant for BoP (mean difference 2.89 (95% CI [0.30 to 5.48] mm, P = 0.03)) with higher values for NDI. Higher MBL was identified among regular diameter implants (mean difference -0.15 mm (95% CI [-0.32 to 0.01 mm], P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were identified for prosthetic survival and PPD.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were found in implant survival rate between narrow and regular implants. A higher BoP was identified among narrow implants, but there was no higher bone loss. It is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about the use of narrow-diameter implants in the posterior region.

Clinical evaluation of narrow-diameter implants versus standard-diameter implants with lateral bone augmentation in posterior jaws: Three-year results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of narrow-diameter implants (NDI) with standard-diameter implants (SDI) in conjunction with lateral bone augmentation in atrophic posterior jaws.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients were included and randomly assigned into two groups: Patients in Group 1 received NDI (Ø3.5 mm); patients in Group 2 received SDI (Ø4.3 mm) with simultaneous lateral bone augmentation. Implant survival rates, complications, crestal bone loss, peri-implant conditions, treatment cost, and patient satisfaction were compared.

RESULTS

Three patients dropped out the follow-up. No implant loss was observed. The difference in technical complication rates between the two groups was 3.8% (95% CI: -13.7% to 21.3%). No significant differences in crestal bone loss were found between two groups at 3-year follow-up (0.55 ± 0.76 vs 0.41 ± 0.41 mm, p = .429). A total of 20.8% (5/24) of NDI were diagnosed with mucositis and 8.3% (2/24) with peri-implantitis. A total of 17.4% (4/23) of SDI showed mucositis and (1/23) 4.3% showed peri-implantitis. The total cumulative cost of treatment per patient in Group 1 (2849.6 USD, 95% CI: 2726.8-2972.4) was significantly lower than that in Group 2 (3581.4 USD, 95% CI, 3460.9-3701.9) over the 3-year follow-up (p < .01). The patient satisfaction rating of operation was significantly higher in Group 1 (85.42 ± 7.41 vs 80.48 ± 7.95, p = .033).

DISCUSSION

NDI yielded favorable implant survival, acceptable technical and biological complications, and high patient satisfaction supporting single crowns in the atrophic posterior region after 3-year follow-up. NDI might be a reasonable alternative in horizontally deficient posterior jaws.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR1800020426.

Short Narrow Dental Implants versus Long Narrow Dental Implants in Fixed Prostheses: A Prospective Clinical Study

There is a paucity of studies that assess short and narrow dental implants. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the performance of both short (≤8 mm) and narrow (≤3.5 mm width) dental implants supporting fixed prostheses in the atrophic maxilla or mandible. Towards that aim, patients with short implants were included in the study. The control group was those with long and narrow dental implants (length > 8 mm and diameter ≤ 3.5 mm). Clinical and demographic variables were extracted from clinical records. During the follow-up, implant survival and marginal bone loss were evaluated and statistically analysed. Forty-one implants were included (18 and 23 implants in the test and control groups, respectively). The median follow-up time was 26 months since insertion in both groups. The results revealed that there was no implant failure and no statistically significant differences in terms of marginal bone loss. Only one screw-loosening effect occurred in the short implants group. Short, narrow dental implants could be an alternative for the restoration of severely resorbed jaws.

Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with severe horizontal bone deficit on mini-implants with two-piece design-retrospective analysis after a mean follow-up of 5 years

BACKGROUND

As a consequence of tooth loss due to trauma or extraction, a reduced alveolar crest volume limits the deployment of standard implants in certain patient cases. For this reason, minimal-invasive treatment with mini-dental implants (MDI) might be an option to allow implant treatment even in cases with severe horizontal bone loss without augmentation measures. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate clinical and radiological implant, as well as patient-related parameters after treatment with MDI.

RESULTS

Clinical and radiological records of 19 female (82.6%) and 4 male patients (17.4%) (N = 23), who received 52 mini-dental implants with a two-piece design in a single surgical center between November 2011 and October 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. Implants were submitted to conventional loading on different types of screwed superstructures. Crestal bone loss was measured on standardized periapical radiographs. Patient-related outcome parameters (PROMs) were recorded during follow-up period. Mean clinical and radiological follow-up was 69.6 months (5.8 years) and 51.6 months (4.3 years), respectively. Three implants were lost in two patients, leading to an implant survival rate of 94.2%. Mean radiological crestal bone loss was 1.6 mm. Both amount of peri-implant recession and crestal bone loss were significantly correlated (r = 0.65; p < 0.001). Likewise, a significant correlation was observed between deeper probing depths and increased peri-implant bone loss (r = 0.41; p = 0.012). Alveolar ridges with a reduced alveolar crest width were significantly correlated with higher peri-implant bone loss as well (r = - 0.33; p = 0.011). No prosthetic complications were reported during follow-up. Extent of midfacial recession and papilla height loss had a significant negative impact on most of the PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with MDI seems to be a successful alternative treatment option, especially for elderly patients with reduced crest width at implant sites. Due to the good clinical results and high survival and success rates, this treatment option was associated with high patient satisfaction. Despite the promising results, particular consideration should be given to appropriate treatment planning in these patients due to the strong correlation between peri-implant soft-tissue parameters, crestal bone loss, and reduced alveolar crest width.

Narrow Diameter Dental Implants as an Alternative Treatment for Atrophic Alveolar Ridges. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To determine the marginal bone loss and the survival, success and failure rates of narrow dental implants, a systematic literature search was carried out in the MEDLINE (Pubmed), Cochrane, Scopus, and Scielo databases for articles published between 2010 and 2021. The exclusion criteria were: systematic reviews, case reports, expert opinions; animal studies; samples of less than 10 subjects; follow-up periods of less than 36 months; smokers of minimum 10 cigarettes/day; and articles about mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage. Meta-analyses were performed to assess marginal bone loss and implant survival, success, and failure rates. Fifteen studies were included: 7 clinical trials, 3 randomized clinical trials, 3 cohort studies, and 2 case series. The total number of subjects was 773, in whom 1245 implants were placed. The survival rate for the narrow diameter implants was 97%, the success rate 96.8%, and the failure rate 3%. Marginal bone loss was 0.821 mm. All these data were evaluated at 36 months. Based on the literature, it can be considered that there is sufficient evidence to consider small diameter implants a predictable treatment option. These show favorable survival and success rates and marginal bone loss. All of them are comparable to those of standard diameter dental implants.

Evaluation of the implant diameter on the initial-stability of narrow- and standard-diameter implants placed in simulated Type-I and Type-IV bone-blocks

Objective:

A comparison of the initial stability of narrow- and standard-diameter implants (SDIs) placed in Type-I and Type-IV bone-blocks is not yet reported. The aim was to evaluate in-vitro the influence of implant diameter on the initial stability of narrow- and standard-diameter implants (SDIs) placed in simulated Type-I and Type-IV bone-blocks.

Methods:

The present experimental in-vitro study was performed between July and September 2020 at the Specialist Dental Practice, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Narrow- and standard-diameter implants were placed 3-mm apart in simulated soft (Type-IV) and dense (Type-I) bone blocks by a trained and calibrated investigator. In groups A (Type-IV bone blocks) and B (Type-I bone blocks), implants were inserted using an insertion-torque and drilling-speed of 15-30 Ncm and 1000-1500 rpm, respectively with the implant collar at the crest of simulated bone blocks. In all samples, initial-stability was recorded using resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Sample-size estimation was done and group-comparisons were carried out. A P-value of 0.01 or less reflected statistical significance.

Results:

In Groups-A and -B, 44 (22 NDIs and 22 SDIs) and 44 (22 NDIs and 22 SDIs) were placed. In group-A, the mean RFA values for NDIs and SDIs were 68.5 ± 3.5 and 69.1 ± 2.4, respectively. In Group-B, the mean RFA values for NDIs and SDIs were 78.06 ± 9.6 and 75.3 ± 5.2. RFA values among NDIs and SDIs in groups A and B were similar.

Conclusion:

The NDIs and SDIs show comparable initial-stability when positioned in simulated Type-I and Type-IV bone blocks.

Comparative analysis of stress distribution in one-piece and two-piece implants with narrow and extra-narrow diameters: A finite element study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the stress distribution on three implant models with narrow and extra-narrow diameters using the finite element method (FEA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dental implants of extra-narrow diameter of 2.5 mm for a one-piece implant (group G1), a narrow diameter of 3.0 mm for a one-piece implant (group G2) and a narrow diameter of 3.5 mm for a two-piece implant with a Morse taper connection (group G3). A three-dimensional model was designed with cortical and cancellous bone, a crown and an implant/abutment set of each group. Axial and angled (30°) loads of 150 N was applied. The equivalent von Mises stress was used for the implants and peri-implant bone plus the Mohr-Coulomb analysis to confirm the data of the peri-implant bone.

RESULTS

In the axial load, the maximum stress value of the cortical bone for the group G1 was 22.35% higher than that the group G2 and 321.23% than the group G3. Whereas in angled load, the groups G1 and G2 showing a similar value (# 3.5%) and a highest difference for the group G3 (391.8%). In the implant structure, the group G1 showed a value of 2188MPa, 93.6% higher than the limit.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that the extra-narrow one-piece implant should be used with great caution, especially in areas of non-axial loads, whereas the one- and two-piece narrow-diameter implants show adequate behavior in both directions of the applied load.

Comparison of peri-implant soft tissue and crestal bone status of dental implants placed in prediabetic, type 2 diabetic, and non-diabetic individuals: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Clinicoradiographic status of narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) among patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is scarce. The aim was to address the clinicoradiographic status of NDIs placed prediabetic, type 2 diabetic, and non-diabetic individuals. In this retrospective cohort study, patients having undergone oral rehabilitation with NDI were included. The participants were divided into the following: (a) patients with prediabetes; (b) patients with poorly controlled type 2 DM; (c) patients with well-controlled type 2 DM; and (d) normoglycemic individuals. Demographic data was collected. In all groups, peri-implant plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and mesiodistal CBL were measured in all groups. Information related to implant dimensions, surface characteristics, insertion torque, implant geometry, duration of NDI in function, and jaw location of NDI was also recorded. Data normality was assessed and group comparisons were performed. A probability value under 0.01 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Eighty-three patients (20 patients had prediabetes, 22 with poorly controlled type 2 DM, 20 with well-controlled type 2 DM, and 20 self-reported non-diabetic individuals) were included. The mean HbA1c levels were significantly higher among patients with prediabetes (P < 0.01) and poorly controlled type 2 DM (P < 0.01) than patients with well-controlled type 2 DM and non-diabetic controls. Peri-implant PI, GI, PD, and mesiodistal CBL levels were significantly higher among patients with pre-diabetes (P < 0.01) and poorly controlled type 2 DM (P < 0.01) than patients with well-controlled type 2 DM and non-diabetic controls. Peri-implant PI, GI, PD, and mesiodistal CBL levels were significantly higher among patients with poorly controlled type 2 DM (P < 0.01) than patients with prediabetes.

Conclusion

Chronic hyperglycemia increases the risk of peri-implant diseases around NDIs.

A Comparative Analysis of Implants Presenting Different Diameters: Extra-Narrow, Narrow and Conventional

This study aimed at performing a comparative analysis of the fracture resistance of implants, evaluating extra-narrow, narrow, and regular implants. Four groups containing 15 implants each were evaluated. Group 1 (G1): single-piece extra-narrow implants; Group 2 (G2): single-piece narrow implants; Group 3 (G3): Morse taper narrow implants with solid abutments; Group 4 (G4): Morse taper conventional implants with solid abutments. The implants were tested using a universal testing machine for their maximum force limit and their maximum bending moment. After obtaining the data, the Shapiro–Wilk, ANOVA, and Tukey (p < 0.05) statistical tests were applied. Samples from all the groups were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and Groups 3 and 4 were analyzed by profilometry. The means and the standard deviation values for the maximum force limit (N) and the maximum bending moment (Nmm) were respectively: G1:134.29 N (10.27); G2:300.61 N (24.26); G3:360.64 N (23.34); G4:419.10 N (18.87); G1:1612.02 Nmm (100.6); G2:2945 Nmm (237.97); G3:3530.38 Nmm (228.75); G4:4096.7 Nmm (182.73). The groups behaved statistically different from each other, showing that the smallest diameter implants provided less fracture resistance, both in the tensile strength tests and in the maximum bending moment between all groups. Furthermore, single-piece implants, with 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm diameters, deformed in the implant body region area, rather than in the abutment region.

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of extra short implants focusing on implant designs and materials

AIM

When using short implants, fracture of the implant body and bone resorption are a concern because stress concentrates on and around a short implant. The purpose of this research is to investigate the differences in stress distribution between tissue level (TL) and bone level (BL) implant body designs, and between commercially pure titanium (cpTi) and the newer titanium-zirconium (TiZr) alloy in using short implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Models of TL and BL implants were prepared for three-dimensional finite element analysis. The implants were produced in 10 mm, 8 mm, and 6 mm lengths, and the TL was also produced in a 4-mm length. A static load of 100 N inclined at 30° to the long axis was applied to the buccal side of the model. The largest maximum principal stress value in the cortical bone and the largest von Mises stress value in the implant body were evaluated.

RESULTS

Stress concentration was observed at the connection part of the implant, especially above the bone in TL and within the bone in BL. In the TL design, tensile stress occurred on the buccal side and compressive stress on the lingual side of the cortical bone. Conversely, in the BL design, tensile stress occurred on the lingual side of the cortical bone. CpTi and TiZr showed a similar stress distribution pattern. The maximum stress values were lower in the TL design than the BL design, and they were lower with TiZr than cpTi for both the cortical bone and implant body. The maximum value tended to increase as the length of the implant body decreased. In addition, the implant body design was more influential than its length, with the TL design showing a stress value similar to the longer BL design.

CONCLUSION

Using TiZr and a TL design may be more useful mechanically than cpTi and a BL design when the length of the implant body must be shorter because of insufficient vertical bone mass in the mandible.

The Use of Narrow Diameter Implants in the Molar Area

Implant rehabilitations in the posterior jaw are influenced by many factors such as the condition of the remaining teeth, the force factors related to the patient, the quality of the bone, the maintenance of the hygiene, the limited bone height, the type and extent of edentulism, and the nature of the opposing arch. The gold standard is to place a regular diameter implant (>3.7 mm) or a wide one to replace every missing molar. Unfortunately, due to horizontal bone resorption, this option is not possible without lateral bone augmentation. In this situation, narrow diameter implant (NDI < 3.5 mm) could be the alternative to lateral bone augmentation procedures. This paper presents a clinical study where NDIs were used for the replacement of missing molars. They were followed up to 11 years. Special considerations were observed and many parameters were evaluated. NDI could be used to replace missing molar in case of moderate horizontal bone resorption if strict guidelines are respected. Yet, future controlled prospective clinical trials are required to admit their use as scientific evidence.