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

Abstract

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.

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

“…When comparing the behavior of small-diameter single-body implants with two-piece implants of different diameters, our results reinforce the findings of other authors [3,44], who stated that despite the better behavior of regular-diameter implants, small-diameter implants are a viable and predictable option for implant-supported rehabilitation, provided that careful planning is carried out. Still, other authors [45][46][47] verified a decrease in the mechanical resistance of extra-reduced-diameter implants when compared with regular-diameter implants, and for this reason, their clinical indication would be restricted to areas with a low incidence of masticatory loads.…”

“…In these cases, the use of small diameter implants may be an alternative [1,2] to the surgery for increase the bone volume or to orthodontic movement for open the mesio-distal space. Mechanically, small diameter implants are less resistant than larger diameter implants [1,3] and have a smaller contact surface, a factor that directly influences the transfer of forces to the peri-implant bone, which can compromise success long-term. However, the use of small diameter implants has shown survival rates similar to standard diameter implants [4][5][6][7].…”

Bacterial infiltration and detorque at the implant abutment morse taper interface after masticatory simulation

“…Tuzzolo et al 31 performed a comparative analysis of the mechanical resistance of implants of different diameters, showing that the implants of smaller diameter provided less fracture resistance, both in the tensile strength tests and in the maximum bending moment, mainly about the single-piece extra-narrow and single-piece narrow implants that deformed in the implant body area, thus demonstrating that the implant diameter selected and the use of intermediate abutments is also a factor of the utmost clinical importance.…”

Preliminary study for fully digitally guided implant treatment with narrow implants in the anterior region

“…In addition, abutments with a small diameter make it difficult to produce an aesthetic prosthesis and the phenomenon of the implant fixture bending under biting force has been reported by experiments [3].…”