Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns: A systematic review

Telles, Lucas Henrique; Portella, Fernando Freitas; Rivaldo, Elken Gomes

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225046

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, recent RCTs (randomized controlled trials) [ 9 ] assessed lower cumulative survival rates for short and ultra-short implants, also considering long-term follow-up (at least 5 years) [ 10 ]. Furthermore, it is reported [ 11 ] that short narrow-diameter implants supporting single-crown can be associated with greater marginal bone loss compared to standard implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues Conditions around Short and Ultra-Short Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A 3-Year Retrospective Study on Periodontally Healthy Patients and Patients with a History of Periodontal Disease

Lombardo

Signoriello

Marincola

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate implant survival, marginal bone loss and peri-implant complications in 326 short and ultra-short implants. Implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions of 140 patients with (PP) and without (NPP) a history of periodontal disease. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 3-year recall appointments. The 8.0, 6.0 and 5.0 mm-length implants placed in PP and NPP were respectively 43.75% and 38.46%, 35.10% and 34.19%, 21.15% and 27.35%; 325 implants (one early failure) were rehabilitated with single crowns in 139 patients. Overall implant survival after 3 years of follow-up was 97.55%, 98.08% and 96.61% for PP and NPP (p = 0.46). Crestal bone level variations were not statistically different among PP and NPP; 15.41% of implants presented signs of mucositis, 14.71% and 16.67% in PP and NPP (p = 0.64). Setting the threshold for bone loss at 2 mm after 36 months, peri-implantitis prevalence was 2.2%, 1.96% and 2.63% in PP and NPP (p = 0.7). Overall implant success was 82.39%, 83.33% and 80.7% for PP and NPP (p = 0.55). Short-term outcomes suggest that short and ultra-short locking-taper implants can successfully be restored with single crowns in the posterior jaws both in PP and NPP.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues Conditions around Short and Ultra-Short Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A 3-Year Retrospective Study on Periodontally Healthy Patients and Patients with a History of Periodontal Disease

Lombardo

Signoriello

Marincola

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To reduce the need for BAPs, patient morbidity, potential post‐operative complications and material costs, the use of reduced diameter implant (i.e. Ø ≤ 3.3 mm) (NDIs) has been proposed with positive short‐term survival and success rates (Schiegnitz & Al‐Nawas, 2018; Telles et al., 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Need for lateral bone augmentation at two narrow‐diameter implants: A prospective, controlled, clinical study

Roccuzzo

Imber

Jensen

2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To detect the potential influence of implant diameter and anatomic factors on the need for bone augmentation procedures (BAPs) when replacing congenitally missing lateral incisors (MLIs). Materials and methods Patients with congenitally missing MLIs with a mesio‐distal distance between the canine and the central incisor of 5.9–6.3 mm received a Ø2.9 mm implant while Ø3.3 mm implants were placed when the distance was 6.4–7.1 mm. The following linear measurements were recorded using a calliper: width of the alveolar process (WAP), width of the bony alveolar ridge (WAR) and thickness of the facial bone after implant osteotomy (TFB). Guided bone regeneration was performed in case of fenestration‐ or dehiscence‐type defects or a thin TFB (<1.7 mm). Results Fifty Ø2.9 mm and 50 Ø3.3 mm were included in 100 patients. WAP and WAR did not differ between the groups (p > .05). TFB was statistically significant larger in the Ø2.9 group (1.75 ± 0.59 mm) compared to the Ø3.3 group (1.5 ± 0.63 mm) (p = .041). Fenestration‐type defects (p = .005) and a thin facial bone wall (p = .045) was observed more frequently in the Ø3.3 compared to the Ø2.9 group. Correspondingly, BAP was indicated more frequently in the Ø3.3 compared to the Ø2.9 group (p = .017). WAP, MD and WAR were statistically significant correlated to the need for BAP (p < .001). As independent variable, only WAR influenced the probability of BAP (p < .001). Conclusion The use of 2.9 diameter implants was correlated to a reduced frequency of BAP compared to 3.3 mm implants, without reaching a statistically significant difference. Measurement of the WAP provides the clinician useful information to predict BAP.

show abstract

“…Based on the observations in a recent overview of systematic reviews, the authors concluded that there was no effect of diabetes on the survival rate of implants, but on MBL, affecting thereby the osseointegration [18]. Correspondingly, another recent systematic review concluded that there was no difference in longevity and survival rates between narrow and standard implants supporting single implants [10]. The definition of a successful implant described an implant without any biological complications, technical complications or negative esthetic outcomes [7].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent meta-analysis showed that the use of narrow diameter implants instead of regular diameter implants with bone augmentation procedures did not reveal differences in survival rates and marginal bone loss rate within the reported period [9]. A recent systematic review concluded non-significant difference in longevity and survival as for narrow and standard implants supporting single implant restorations, albeit the reduced-diameter implants more likely disclosed greater marginal bone loss [10]. The use of titanium-zirconium (TiZr) alloy implants for narrow implants has significantly increased biomechanical resistance, as shown in dynamic fatigue resistance tests, widening the indication range and making the use of narrow diameter implants in the posterior possible [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One-year performance of posterior narrow diameter implants in hyperglycemic and normo-glycemic patients—a pilot study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of the study was to compare the performance of narrow diameter implants in patients with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM) and normo-glycemic individuals during the first 12 months after implant loading. Material and methods In 16 T2DM patients with HbA1C > 6.5% (test group) and 16 normo-glycemic patients (HbA1C < 6.0%; control group), one to two narrow diameter tissue level implants were placed in the posterior maxilla or mandible. After 3-month lasting integration period, implants were loaded by fixed dentures. The clinical parameters probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), attachment loss (CAL), recession and papilla bleeding index (PBI) were assessed manually at loading and after 12 months of function. The paired digital periapical radiographs were analyzed with regard to the change in marginal bone level (MBL) from baseline to 12 months’ control. The mean values calculated for both patient groups were statistically analyzed. The technical complications were recorded. Results The T2DM group accounted 13 patients due to 3 dropouts. The overall implant survival rate after 12 months was 100%. The differences in means for the clinical parameters and the MBL were statistically non-significant between the T2DM and normo-glycemic patients for the short period of loaded function reported here. No technical complications were recorded. Conclusions The study demonstrated an encouraging clinical outcome with narrow diameter implants in patients with uncontrolled T2DM compared to non-diabetics after 12 months post loading. For the short observation period, no biological and technical complications were reported regardless the glycemic status. Clinical relevance Patients with HbA1C > 6.5% may benefit from the treatment with narrow diameter implants by avoiding complex surgical interventions with augmentation procedures. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04630691

show abstract

Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns: A systematic review

Cited by 13 publications

References 22 publications

Assessment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues Conditions around Short and Ultra-Short Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A 3-Year Retrospective Study on Periodontally Healthy Patients and Patients with a History of Periodontal Disease

Assessment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues Conditions around Short and Ultra-Short Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A 3-Year Retrospective Study on Periodontally Healthy Patients and Patients with a History of Periodontal Disease

Need for lateral bone augmentation at two narrow‐diameter implants: A prospective, controlled, clinical study

One-year performance of posterior narrow diameter implants in hyperglycemic and normo-glycemic patients—a pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About