Use of Mini Implants for Replacement and Immediate Loading of 2 Single-tooth Restorations: A Clinical Case Report

Siddiqui, Azfar A.; Sosovicka, Mark; Goetz, Mark

doi:10.1563/794.1

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the minimal surgical intervention using mini dental implants (MDIs) has been suggested to reduce the surgical complexity and morbidity for elderly patients. The use of regular sized implants (>3 mm in diameter) would require bone reshaping or grafting (Siddiqui et al 2006;Christensen 2008;Jofré et al 2010). The advantages of MDIs are that they can be used with the minimally invasive surgery, placed within narrow or otherwise constrained sites, and offer a far more economical solution (Takagaki et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical response comparison in an implant overdenture retained by ball attachments on conventional regular and mini dental implants: a finite element analysis

Chang

Huang

et al. 2015

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the bone/implant mechanical responses in an implant overdenture retained by ball attachments on two conventional regular dental implants (RDI) and four mini dental implants (MDI) using finite element (FE) analysis. Two FE models of overdentures retained by RDIs and MDIs for a mandibular edentulous patient with validation within 6% variation errors were constructed by integrating CT images and CAD system. Bone grafting resulted in 2 mm thickness at the buccal side constructed for the RDIs-supported model to mimic the bone augmentation condition for the atrophic alveolar ridge. Nonlinear hyperelastic material and frictional contact element were used to simulate characteristic of the ball attachment-retained overdentures. The results showed that a denture supported by MDIs presented higher surrounding bone strains than those supported by RDIs under different load conditions. Maximum bone micro strains were up to 6437/2987 and 13323/5856 for MDIs/RDIs under single centric and lateral contacts, respectively. Corresponding values were 4429/2579 and 9557/5774 under multi- centric and lateral contacts, respectively. Bone micro strains increased 2.06 and 1.96-folds under single contact, 2.16 and 2.24-folds under multiple contacts for MDIs and RDIs when lateral to axial loads were compared. The maximum RDIs and MDIs implant stresses in all simulated cases were found by far lower than their yield strength. Overdentures retained using ball attachments on MDIs in poor edentulous bone structure increase the surrounding bone strain over the critical value, thereby damaging the bone when compared to the RDIs. Eliminating the occlusal single contact and oblique load of an implant-retained overdenture reduces the risk for failure.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical response comparison in an implant overdenture retained by ball attachments on conventional regular and mini dental implants: a finite element analysis

Chang

Huang

et al. 2015

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mini dental implants or small size implants are also being widely used for stabilizing the complete dentures [9], for orthodontic anchorage [10–12], single tooth replacements [13, 14], fixing the surgical guides for definitive implant placement [15], and as transitional implants for the support of interim removable prosthesis during the healing phase of final fixtures [16, 17]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 3M™ESPE™ mini dental implant (MDI) system makes use of a self-tapping threaded screw design and needs a minimal surgical intervention. Also, small-size implants have been widely used for orthodontic anchorage [3–5], single tooth replacements [6, 7], fixing the surgical guides for definitive implant placement [8], and as transitional implants for the support of interim removable prosthesis during the healing phase of final fixtures [9, 10]. The MDIs have several advantages over the regular implants used for overdentures such as, simpler surgical protocol and minimally invasive surgery, and they can often be loaded immediately [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®

Dhaliwal

Marulanda

et al. 2017

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAn ideal implant should have a surface that is conducive to osseointegration. In vitro cell culture studies using disks made of same materials and surface as of implants may provide useful information on the events occurring at the implant-tissue interface. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that there is no difference in the proliferation and differentiation capacities of osteoblastic cells when cultured on titanium disks mimicking the surface of 3M™ESPE™ MDIs or standard (Ankylos®) implants.MethodsCells were grown on disks made of the same materials and with same surface texture as those of the original implants. Disks were sterilized and coated with 2% gelatin solution prior to the cell culture experiments. C2C12 pluripotent cells treated with 300 ng/ml bone morphogenetic protein 2 BMP-2 and a stably transfected C2C12 cell line expressing BMP2 were used as models for osteogenic cells. The Hoechst 33258-stained nuclei were counted to assay cell proliferation, while alkaline phosphatase (ALPL) immunostaining was performed to investigate osteogenic differentiation. MC3T3-E1 cells were cultured as model osteoblasts. The cells were differentiated and assayed for proliferation and metabolic activities by Hoechst 33258 staining and Alamar blue reduction assays, respectively. Additionally, cultures were stained by calcein to investigate their mineral deposition properties.ResultsElectron microscopy showed greater degree of roughness on the MDI surfaces. Nuclear counting showed significantly higher number of C2C12 cells on the MDI surface. Although immunostaining detected higher number of ALPL-positive cells, it was not significant when normalized by cell numbers. The number of MC3T3-E1 cells was also higher on the MDI surface, and accordingly, these cultures showed higher Alamar blue reduction. Finally, calcein staining revealed that the MC3T3-E1 cells grown on MDI surfaces deposited more minerals.ConclusionsAlthough both implant surfaces are conducive for osteoblastic cell attachment, proliferation, and extracellular matrix mineralization, cell proliferation is higher on MDI surfaces, which may in turn facilitate osseointegration via increased ECM mineralization.

show abstract

Use of Mini Implants for Replacement and Immediate Loading of 2 Single-tooth Restorations: A Clinical Case Report

Cited by 25 publications

References 12 publications

Mechanical response comparison in an implant overdenture retained by ball attachments on conventional regular and mini dental implants: a finite element analysis

Mechanical response comparison in an implant overdenture retained by ball attachments on conventional regular and mini dental implants: a finite element analysis

Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison

In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About