Clinical, Esthetic, and Radiographic Evaluation of Small-Diameter (3.0-mm) Implants Supporting Single Crowns in the Anterior Region: A 3-Year Prospective Study

Pieri, Francesco; Siroli, Lucia; Forlivesi, Caterina; Corinaldesi, Giuseppe

doi:10.11607/prd.1588

Cited by 14 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these outcome parameters were seldom assessed. Pieri, Siroli, Forlivesi & Corinaldesi, () showed high mean pink a esthetic scores and stable facial soft tissues after a follow‐up of 3 years. King et al., () indicated stable soft tissues and clinically insignificant changes in probing depth and gingival zenith stores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrow‐diameter implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Schiegnitz

Al‐Nawas

2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

136

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. K E Y W O R D Smeta-analysis, narrow diameter, review, small dental implants, survivalThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrow‐diameter implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Schiegnitz

Al‐Nawas

2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

136

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those clinical situations can make rehabilitation with regular diameter (3.75-4.1 mm) implants unviable [1]. As a result, the use of implants with reduced diameters, less than 3.75 mm, has significantly contributed to the restoration of areas with limited prosthetic space [2][3][4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Although rehabilitation of implants placed in partially edentulous patients with single crowns and/or fixed partial dentures presents a high predictability, studies using finite element analysis and photoelastic modeling have suggested that splinted restorations (SR) allow better force distribution as compared to nonsplinted restorations (NSR) . NSR have also been reported to undergo higher occlusal forces, which may increase the stress on the prosthodontic components .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%