Long‐Term Follow‐Up of 2.5‐mm Narrow‐Diameter Implants Supporting a Fixed Prostheses

Abstract

When dental implants of 2.5 mm in diameter are splinted by a fixed prosthesis, long-term favorable outcomes could be obtained.

Narrow‐ (3.0 mm) Versus Standard‐Diameter (4.0 and 4.5 mm) Implants for Splinted Partial Fixed Restoration of Posterior Mandibular and Maxillary Jaws: A 5‐Year Retrospective Cohort Study

“…The measurement of MBLs around NDIs showed a mean value below 1 mm after 5 years since placement, which would indicate the absence of excessive mechanical loading on the 3‐mm‐diameter implants. Similar radiographic results have been reported by Arisan et al 29 and Anitua et al 30 Furthermore, NDIs were associated with a similar bone loss at 5 years compared with SDIs. This result seems to contradict findings of previous experimental studies using finite element analyses, in which implant diameter reduction was associated with a greater stress and strain concentration around the head of the implants 14 , 31 .…”

Narrow‐ and regular‐diameter implants in the posterior region of the jaws to support single crowns: A 3‐year split‐mouth randomized clinical trial

“…() concluded that small‐diameter implants could be successfully used as low‐cost solution; however, higher failure rates were reported with shorter and narrow implants. Some studies have suggested that the length has a direct impact on implant survival rate, considering that longer implants are able to better disperse the occlusal forces and reach better implant stability; however, this is still a controversial topic (Anitua, Saracho, Begoña, & Alkhraisat, ; Ortega‐Oller et al., ; Sohrabi et al.,).…”

The influence of the distance between narrow implants and the adjacent teeth on marginal bone levels

“…), prosthesis design (Anitua et al. ), bone quality, soft tissue‐related factors, smoking and oral hygiene habits, age and gender (Negri et al. ), bone quantity, final drill during implant placement, healing time before prosthesis delivery (Galindo‐Moreno et al.…”

“…Therefore, factors that influence peri-implant bone loss at early stages are of great importance. The available literature has shown a key role of implant diameter, length and depth with respect to the bone crest (Liaje et al 2012;Zweers et al 2015), prosthesis design (Anitua et al 2015), bone quality, soft tissue-related factors, smoking and oral hygiene habits, age and gender (Negri et al 2014), bone quantity, final drill during implant placement, healing time before prosthesis delivery (Galindo-Moreno et al 2012) as well as platform-switching (Canullo et al 2010(Canullo et al , 2011(Canullo et al , 2012 and prosthesis abutment height , 2016 and connection design (Galindo-Moreno et al 2015a). A summary of this evidence shows that narrow-diameter implants that are placed below the crestal bone in patients who smoke, with under-preparation of the implant bed and restored with individually cemented crowns soon after they are placed, are more likely to lose more marginal bone in the early stages.…”