Clinical, radiographic, and restorative peri‐implant measurements of narrow and standard diameter implants in obese and nonobese patients: A 3‐year retrospective follow‐up study

Alshiddi, Ibraheem F; Alsahhaf, Abdulaziz; Alshagroud, Rana; Al‐Aali, Khulud Abdulrahman; Vohra, Fahim; Abduljabbar, Tariq

doi:10.1111/cid.12798

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there is no consensus in the literature on the definition of narrow implants, in general, implants with a diameter narrower than 3.5 mm are considered narrow whereas implants with diameters narrower than 3.0 mm are described as extra-narrow or mini implants. 8 Reduced bleeding, postoperative discomfort, and healing time are some of the reported advantages of these implants when compared with grafting procedures. 4 Moreover, narrow and extranarrow implant survival rates from 80% to 100% were reported in a follow-up period of up to seven years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of risk factors on the long-term survival of oral rehabilitation with extra-narrow implants: a retrospective study

Marcantônio

Sartori

Vianna³

et al. 2022

J. Appl. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study aimed to retrospectively collect clinical data to evaluate the influence of possible risk factors on the long-term success of implant treatment with extra-narrow (2.9 mm diameter) implants in a daily dental practice setting. Methodology Data were collected from records of patients who received at least one extra-narrow implant from 2012 to 2017, regarding implant survival, prosthesis survival, patient characteristics, and implant characteristics. The association between the dependent variables “implant survival”, “prosthesis survival,” and “adverse events” related to patient and implant characteristics was statistically evaluated by chi-square tests. Moreover, implant and prosthesis survival were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results The sample was constituted of 58 patients (37 women and 21 men) with a mean age of 54.8 years old (SD: 12.5), followed up for up to eight years. In total, 86 extra-narrow implants were placed within this sample. Four implants were lost, resulting in an implant survival rate of 95.3%. A total of 55 prostheses were inserted and only one (1.8%) was lost, resulting in a prosthesis survival rate of 98.2%. The mean implant and prosthesis survival time was, respectively, 7.1 years and 6.3 years, according to the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. A correlation was found between smoking and implant loss, which makes implant loss eight times more likely to occur in smokers than non-smokers. A significant association was also found between prosthesis loss and previous need of prosthesis repair. However, it was not considered clinically relevant. No association was found between the occurrence of adverse events and later implant or prosthesis loss. Conclusion High implant and prosthesis survival rates were found in the long term for treatment with extra-narrow implants. Moreover, a significant correlation between smoking and implant loss was observed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of risk factors on the long-term survival of oral rehabilitation with extra-narrow implants: a retrospective study

Marcantônio

Sartori

Vianna³

et al. 2022

J. Appl. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 Other variables that may affect PS encompass implant dimensions (length and diameter), surface characteristics (moderately rough or smooth), and number of threads on the implant surface. 3,[7][8][9][10][11] With regard to implant diameter, studies [12][13][14][15] have shown that narrow-(<3.3 mm) and standard-(4.1 mm) diameter dental implants can remain functionally stable in smokers and medically compromised patient in a manner similar to systemically healthy nonsmokers. However, achievement of PS is often challenging when implants are placed in type-IV bone (soft bone), which usually comprises the posterior maxillae.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary stability of narrow‐diameter dental implants with a multiple condensing thread design placed in bone with and without osteotomes: An in vitro study

Romanos

Lau

Delgado-Ruíz

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The authors hypothesized that there is no difference in the primary stability (PS) of multiple condensing thread design (MCTD) implants placed in simulated type-IV bone with and without using osteotomes. Purpose: This in vitro study assessed the PS of narrow-diameter dental implants with MCTD placed in simulated soft (type-IV) bone with and without using osteotomes. Materials and Methods: Sixty MCT-designed implants (diameter: 3.0 mm; length: 11.5 mm) were placed using 800 rpm drilling speed in cellular rigid polyurethane foam bone-blocks that simulated type-IV bone. Prior to placement, the implants were divided into three groups (20 implants per group) depending upon the protocol used for osteotomy preparation-Group-1: Conventional drilling (CD); Group-2: CD followed by osseous condensation using a chisel-shaped tapered osteotome with maximum diameter of 3 mm; and Group-3: CD followed by osseous condensation using a cylindrical osteotome with maximum diameter of 3 mm. Abutments were connected to all implants and PS was recorded using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and the periotest (PTV). Group comparisons were performed using analysis and Bonferroni post-hoc adjustment tests. Level of significance was set at P < .05. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the RFA values for the MCT-designed implants placed in groups 1, 2, and 3 (59.85 ± 0.72, 59.67 ± 0.76 and 59.42 ± 0.92, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the PTV values for MCT-designed implants in groups 1, 2, and 3 (1.655 ± 0.82, 1.405 ± 0.57, and 1.078 ± 0.63, respectively). Conclusion: The MCTD implants with narrow diameters have a high PS in artificial soft bone in vitro. Due to the condensation effect of the thread design, there is no need for additional condensation of the peri-osteotomy bone in order to improve implant stability.

show abstract

“…A self-conducted literature search revealed a confusing variety of terms and dimensions for implants with reduced diameter. Implants with diameters between 1.8 and 2.4 mm [ 23 , 24 ], < 3.0 mm [ 5 ], or 3.0 mm [ 25 ] were designated by different authors as “mini-implants.” Several other authors labeled implants with diameters of 3.0 mm [ 26 ], 3.0 to 3.5 mm [ 5 , 27 ], < 3.3 mm [ 19 , 28 ], 3.3 mm [ 29 – 33 ], ≤ 3.5 mm [ 34 ], or < 5.0 mm [ 35 ] as “narrow implants.” Other common designations for MDI were “small implants” (3.0 to 3.5 mm) or “diameter reduced implants” (3.3 mm). Hence, a consensus for a clear cut-off point between implants with a standard diameter and implants with a reduced, non-standard diameter is still missing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Clinical, radiographic, and restorative peri‐implant measurements of narrow and standard diameter implants in obese and nonobese patients: A 3‐year retrospective follow‐up study

Cited by 11 publications

References 35 publications

Influence of risk factors on the long-term survival of oral rehabilitation with extra-narrow implants: a retrospective study

Influence of risk factors on the long-term survival of oral rehabilitation with extra-narrow implants: a retrospective study

Primary stability of narrow‐diameter dental implants with a multiple condensing thread design placed in bone with and without osteotomes: An in vitro study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About