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

Abstract

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.

Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 1‐year prospective, controlled, clinical study

“…No soft tissue augmentation procedures were performed simultaneous with implant placement. Additional data on the population have been reported in Roccuzzo et al, 2021. At the 1‐year follow‐up examination, a total of seven dropout patients ((Ø2.9 mm ( n = 3); Ø3.3 mm ( n = 4)) were recorded.…”

“…Finally, a conical healing abutment (Straumann SC Healing Abutment narrow and standard connections, 2) was mounted, and the flap was repositioned and sutured to allow a tension‐free healing. Details of the surgical procedures have been previously reported (Roccuzzo et al, 2021).…”

“…However, in areas of limited load, implants with a reduced diameter have shown comparable results compared with standard diameter implants. In addition, a potential advantage of using NDIs may be a reduced need for bone augmentation procedures due to the reduced diameter of the required osteotomy (Roccuzzo et al, 2021). So far, however, the generalizability of the reported clinical, radiographic, and esthetic outcomes of NDIs might be questionable due to the limited number of treated patients (Zarone et al, 2006) or without a control group (Lacarbonara et al, 2021).…”

Treatment concepts of horizontally deficient ridges—A retrospective study comparing narrow‐diameter implants in pristine bone with standard‐diameter implants in augmented bone

“…There is recent evidence that a thin buccal bone wall at implant insertion will undergo significant resorption during healing, leading to vertical bone loss and inducing a peri‐implant bone defect in the crestal area prior to functional loading (Monje et al., 2019). In a recent prospective, controlled, clinical study the potential influence of implant diameter and anatomic factors on the need for bone augmentation procedures when replacing congenitally missing lateral incisors was examined (Roccuzzo et al., 2021). In this study patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors with a mesio‐distal distance between the canine and the central incisor of 5.9–6.3 mm received a 2.9 mm diameter implant while 3.3 mm diameter implants were inserted when the distance was 6.4–7.1 mm.…”

Short versus standard implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Short dental implants are currently used, besides, as an alternative to longer implants in purposely augmented bone, in case of reduced bone volume [ 9 ], to support fixed prosthesis in the rehabilitation of atrophic jaws [ 10 ]. In addition, narrow and short implants can be used as an alternative to longer and wider implants in augmented zones with reduced bone volume [ 11 , 12 ]. In cases of suspected graft infection, moreover, it may be wiser to remove the graft completely and use short implants instead [ 5 ].…”