Dental Implant Length and Diameter: A Proposed Classification Scheme

Al-Johany, Sulieman S.; Amri, Mohammad D. Al; Alsaeed, Suliman; Alalola, Bassam

doi:10.1111/jopr.12517

Cited by 95 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The classification of NDI is difficult due to the lack of consensus with regard to its definition . Implants with diameters ranging from 3.3 to 3.7 mm are considered standard diameter implants or RDI by some researchers .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Alrabiah

2018

J of Invest & Clin Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to establish survival rates, as well as crestal bone loss (CBL) of narrow diameter implants (NDI), compared to regular diameter implants (RDI). The current review followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement. We searched main databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register) for articles addressing the focused question up to and including May 2018. Meta‐analyses were conducted for CBL and survival rates. Qualitatively, three clinical studies showed comparable CBL and survival rates between NDI and RDI at follow up. Only one study showed increased CBL around NDI compared to RDI. The overall weighted mean difference (WMD) for CBL (WMD = .06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = ‐.38‐.51, P=.76) and risk difference for survival rate (risk difference = .88, 95% CI = .22‐3.50, P=.85) were not significant between the NDI and RDI groups at follow up. NDI and RDI showed comparable CBL and survival rates. However, the findings of the present study should be interpreted with caution due to significant heterogeneity and the low number of included studies. Further randomized, controlled trials should be performed in order to obtain strong conclusions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Alrabiah

2018

J of Invest & Clin Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternative to regular diameter implants (RDIs) are the narrow diameter implants (NDIs), which have a diameter ranging from 3 to 3.75 mm that provides a cost‐effective and standard treatment option in certain clinical scenarios such as inadequate mesiodistal space in upper lateral and lower incisors . Research reports satisfactory survival rates, patient‐centered outcomes and certain complications of NDI‐supported prostheses .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant health status around narrow diameter implant‐supported single and splinted crowns

Al‐Aali

ArRejaie

Alrahlah

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Studies assessing and comparing clinical and radiographic peri‐implant status around narrow diameter implant‐supported single crowns (NDISCs) and splinted crowns (NDISPs) are scarce. Objective The aim of this retrospective study was to estimate and compare complication rates, patient satisfaction, peri‐implant status and peri‐implant bone loss (PBL) of NDISCs and NDISPs. Materials and Methods Patients receiving narrow diameter implants (NDIs) in the posterior mandible were assessed. Technical complication and patient satisfaction were recorded. Clinical peri‐implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BoP), probing depth (PD) and PBL were assessed. Technical complications and patient satisfaction were recorded. Log‐rank test was computed to evaluate the influence of prostheses type and NDIs location on technical complications. P‐value less than 0.05 was regarded as significant. Results Seventy‐eight patients (43 male and 35 females) agreed to follow up. The mean follow‐up duration of the patients was 3.6 years. A total of 102 (43 NDISCs and 59 NDISPs) NDIs with moderately rough surfaces were included. No significant differences in PI, BoP, or PD were observed between NDISCs and NDISPs. The average PBL score was 1.17 (range: 0.03‐4.15) at implant level and 1.14 (range: 0.03‐4.14) at patient level. Seven implants and three patients showed peri‐implantitis. The rates of technical complication of single crowns were significantly higher than those of splinted crowns (P = 0.036). PBL was significantly higher in molar sites than those in premolar sites (P = 0.041). A total of 67 patients (85.9%) were satisfied with the esthetics of the crowns, while a total of 59 patients (75.6%) were satisfied with the function of the crowns. Conclusion NDISCs and NDISPs offer high patient satisfaction and tolerable complication rates. Peri‐implant conditions and peri‐implant bone levels were comparable around NDISCs and NDISPs. However, bone loss of implants was higher in molar sites than those implants in premolar sites.

show abstract

“…The classification of implant diameter has been inconclusive. According to some studies, Klein et al termed 3.3 to 3.5 mm diameter implant as NDIs, whereas implants with diameters ranging from 3 mm to 3.75 mm were categorized as NDIs by Al‐Johany et al Implants with 3.3 mm, 3.5 mm, and 3.6 mm diameters were categorized as NDIs in this cohort study to minimize the confounders.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Yang

Chen

Gao

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Narrow‐diameter implants (NDIs) have been proposed to address the dilemma of implant installation in cases of insufficient bone volume. However, the potential risk factors of failed NDIs, and whether reimplants with reliable efficacy are still controversial. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the survival/success rate of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region and that of reimplants at the same site, as well as to explore the potential risk factors of original and replaced implants. Materials and Methods From January 2015 to April 2019, patients receiving NDIs in the anterior maxilla were enrolled in the present study. Multiple variables were assessed to exploit the risk factor of failed NDIs, including age, sex, implant sites, length, surface characteristics, and healing abutment designs. The relationship between bone augmentation and the number of missing teeth was assessed. For failed NDIs, the reasons for NDIs removal and marginal bone loss (MBL) were analyzed. The details and outcomes of reimplants were evaluated. Results Cumulative survival rates (CSRs) and success rates of 1095 NDIs installed in 835 patients were 96.99% and 96.51%, respectively. In total, 33 of these NDIs failed. TiUnite (TU) surface was a risk factor and it affected the success rate (92.56%) and CSR (92.4%) of NDIs (P < .001). The single NDIs with bone augmentation have lower failure rate. The average MBL for 33 failed NDIs was 1.92 ± 1.91 mm. Additionally, 22 patients with 23 NDIs accepted reimplantation of previously failed NDIs, and the success rate of reimplants was 95.65%. Conclusions Surface characteristic (TU surface) was a risk factor for failure of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region. Bone augmentation simultaneously performed during NDIs implantation was favorable for a single missing tooth. As an alternative plan, the reimplantation of failed NDIs was reliable and stable after successful bone reconstruction.

show abstract

Dental Implant Length and Diameter: A Proposed Classification Scheme

Abstract: Indexed publications contain a variety of terms used by authors to describe diameter and length of dental implants without conformity and standardization. The classification scheme proposed in this article could serve as a reference for interested parties.

Cited by 95 publications

References 75 publications

Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant health status around narrow diameter implant‐supported single and splinted crowns

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About