Narrow-diameter implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:162
作者
Schiegnitz, Eik [1 ]
Al-Nawas, Bilal [1 ]
机构
[1] Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Univ Med Ctr, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Plast Surg, Mainz, Germany
基金
巴西圣保罗研究基金会;
关键词
meta-analysis; narrow diameter; review; small dental implants; survival; TITANIUM-ZIRCONIUM IMPLANTS; MAXILLARY LATERAL INCISOR; MINI-DENTAL IMPLANTS; RETROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER ANALYSIS; SINGLE MISSING MAXILLARY; MARGINAL BONE LOSS; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; FOLLOW-UP; RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION; MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURES;
D O I
10.1111/clr.13272
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: Narrow-diameter implants (NDI) are claimed to be a reasonable alternative to bone augmentation procedures. The aim of this comprehensive literature review was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the implant survival of NDI and standard diameter implants (SDI) and to provide recommendations and guidelines for application of NDI. Material and methods: An extensive systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. NDI were classified into Category 1 (implant diameter <3.0 mm, "mini-implants"), Category 2 (implant diameter 3-3.25 mm) and Category 3 (implant diameters 3.3-3.5 mm). Clinical studies at all levels of evidence with at least 10 patients included and a follow-up time of at least 12 months were included. The primary outcome criterion was the survival rates of NDI. Results: Seventy-six studies were identified for qualitative and 16 studies for quantitative synthesis. Quality assessment illustrated a high risk of bias for the included literature. Mean implant survival rates were 94.7 +/- 5%, 97.3 +/- 5% and 97.7 +/- 2.3% for Categories 1, 2 and 3. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant lower implant survival of Category 1 NDI compared to SDI ([OR], 4.54; [CI], 1.51-13.65). For Category 2 and Category 3, no statistical significant differences in implant survival were seen compared to SDI ([OR], 1.06; [CI], 0.31-3.61 and [OR], 1.19; [CI], 0.83-1.70). Conclusion: NDI of Category 1 performed statistically significantly worse than SDI and were mainly described for the rehabilitation of the highly atrophic maxilla or mandible. Category 2 and Category 3 NDI showed no difference in implant survival compared to SDI. Category 2 NDI were mostly used for the rehabilitation of limited interdental spaces in anterior single-tooth restorations. NDI of Category 3 were described in all regions, including posterior single-tooth restorations. However, resilient long-term data and data on the possible risk of biological and technical complications with wide platform teeth on NDI are missing so far.
引用
收藏
页码:21 / 40
页数:20
相关论文
共 105 条
[1]   A Prospective Noninterventional Study to Evaluate Survival and Success of Reduced Diameter Implants Made From Titanium-Zirconium Alloy [J].
Al-Nawas, Bilal ;
Domagala, Peter ;
Fragola, Giuliano ;
Freiberger, Philip ;
Ortiz-Vigon, Alberto ;
Rousseau, Paul ;
Tondela, Joao .
JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2015, 41 (04) :E118-E125
[2]  
Al-Nawas B, 2014, EUR J ORAL IMPLANTOL, V7, pS219
[3]   A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of Titanium-13Zirconium versus Titanium Grade IV Small-Diameter Bone Level Implants in Edentulous Mandibles - Results from a 1-Year Observation Period [J].
Al-Nawas, Bilal ;
Bragger, Urs ;
Meijer, Henny J. A. ;
Naert, Ignace ;
Persson, Rigmor ;
Perucchi, Alessandro ;
Quirynen, Marc ;
Raghoebar, Gerry M. ;
Reichert, Torsten E. ;
Romeo, Eugenio ;
Santing, Hendrik J. ;
Schimmel, Martin ;
Storelli, Stefano ;
ten Bruggenkate, Christiaan ;
Vandekerckhove, Betty ;
Wagner, Wilfried ;
Wismeijer, Daniel ;
Mueller, Frauke .
CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2012, 14 (06) :896-904
[4]   Ten-Year Retrospective Follow-Up Study of the TiOblast™ Dental Implant [J].
Al-Nawas, Bilal ;
Kaemmerer, Peer W. ;
Morbach, Thomas ;
Ladwein, Catharina ;
Wegener, Joachim ;
Wagner, Wilfried .
CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2012, 14 (01) :127-134
[5]   The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study [J].
Allum, Simon Rupert ;
Tomlinson, Rachel Anne ;
Joshi, Rajendra .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2008, 19 (06) :553-559
[6]  
Andersen E, 2001, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V16, P217
[7]   5-year clinical experience with BTI® dental implants:: risk factors for implant failure [J].
Anitua, Eduardo ;
Orive, Gorka ;
Aguirre, Jose Javier ;
Ardanza, Bruno ;
Andia, Isabel .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2008, 35 (08) :724-732
[8]   Long-Term Follow-Up of 2.5-mm Narrow-Diameter Implants Supporting a Fixed Prostheses [J].
Anitua, Eduardo ;
Saracho, Juan ;
Begona, Leire ;
Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan .
CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2016, 18 (04) :769-777
[9]  
Anitua E, 2010, EUR J ORAL IMPLANTOL, V3, P315
[10]   Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review [J].
Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido ;
Verri, Fellippo Ramos ;
de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo ;
Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira ;
Mello, Caroline Cantieri ;
Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza .
JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2017, 57 :4-13