Long-term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: A retrospective study with at least 8-year follow-up

Splinting or non-splinting of fixed prostheses on adjacent implants: A critical review

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to identify, through a critical review of the literature, the success factors associated with the splinting of fixed prostheses on adjacent implants of the posterior sectors in partially edentulous patients compared with those not splinted.

STUDY SELECTION

A MEDLINE strategy was implemented based on a research question to systematically search and extract information from databases (PubMed and Scopus) using MeSH terms/keywords identified for each domain. Systematic reviews, clinical and in vitro studies were selected and classified according to eligibility criteria based on the research question and level of evidence using the PRISMA flowchart.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies were selected for data extraction and analysis according to study design (three systematic reviews, 14 clinical studies, and 15 in vitro studies). Overall, the studies found no significant difference in the association between the survival rate and prosthesis type. In clinical studies, there have been no differences in marginal bone loss between splinted and non-splinted prostheses, and the influence of peri-implant status and restorative materials has been poorly evaluated. The distribution of stress and loads determined in the in vitro studies showed results that could favor splinted prostheses; however, are generally associated with implant design.

CONCLUSIONS

The need for splinted or non-splinted adjacent implant-supported prostheses remains controversial. The reviewed evidence indicates that factors such as implant size and its relationship with coronal height could be important in decision-making.

Clinical analysis of the tooth-implant papilla for two narrow-diameter titanium-zirconium implants in the anterior area: prospective controlled clinical study

BACKGROUND

Rehabilitation of the anterior area when the mesio-distal space is reduced is a challenge for the clinician, due to the patient's anatomical limitations and aesthetic requirements. Narrow Diameter Implants (NDI) are an option of treatment when the standard diameter implant is not possible, but the evidence is scarce. This prospective clinical study aims to analyze the formation of the tooth-implant papilla between the implant and the adjacent natural tooth in the maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisors.

METHODS

A total of 40 patients treated with NDI, of titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr) alloy i.e., 2.9 mm Test Group (TG) and 3.3 mm Control Group (CG), were included. The mesiodistal distance between the adjacent natural teeth was used for implant selection, maintaining 1.5 mm between the fixation and the adjacent tooth. Clinical assessment was performed by a clinical examiner at 6 and 12 months after the final prosthesis. The primary variable was the Jemt Papillary Index. Also, implant survival rate (SR), complications, Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ), and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) such as aesthetics, chewing, phonation, comfort, and self-esteem were analyzed.

RESULTS

A significant amount of papilla filling was observed concerning the baseline, with a trend towards more formation of the papilla in the TG, with a JPI score of 3. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding implant SR, clinical parameters, and complications. In terms of PROMs, a higher satisfaction in the TG was observed, with significant intergroup differences for aesthetics, comfort, self-esteem, and primary stability ISQ (TG: 59.05 (SD: 5.4) vs. CG: 51.55 (SD: 5.7)).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2.9 mm diameter Ti-Zr implants achieved a formation of papilla similar to 3.3 mm implants in the anterior region at 12 months of follow-up after the final prosthetic restoration. The use of Ti-Zr implants with a diameter of 2.9 mm to rehabilitate single teeth in areas of the anterior region, where the mesiodistal distance is limited, showed favorable clinical results and a high degree of satisfaction during 1 year of observation similar to 3.3 mm dental implants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT05642520, dated 18/11/2022.

Clinical evaluation of 3.0-mm narrow-diameter implants: a retrospective study with up to 5 years of observation

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a single type of narrow-diameter implant (NDI) by investigating its survival rate and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). In addition, variables possibly related to implant survival and MBL were investigated to identify potential risk factors.

METHODS

The study was conducted as a retrospective study involving 49 patients who had received 3.0-mm diameter TSIII implants (Osstem Implant Co.) at Seoul National University Dental Hospital. In total, 64 implants were included, and dental records and radiographic data were collected from 2017 to 2022. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazard model were used to estimate the implant survival rate and to investigate the effects of age, sex, jaw, implant location, implant length, the stage of surgery, guided bone regeneration, type of implant placement, and the surgeon's proficiency (resident or professor) on implant survival. The MBL of the NDIs was measured, and the factors influencing MBL were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean observation period was 30.5 months (interquartile range, 26.75-45 months), and 6 out of 64 implants failed. The survival rate of the NDIs was 90.6%, and the multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age was associated with implant failure (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.31, P=0.01). The mean MBL was 0.44±0.75 mm, and no factors showed statistically significant associations with greater MBL.

CONCLUSIONS

NDIs can be considered a primary alternative when standard-diameter implants are unsuitable. However, further studies are required to confirm their long-term stability.

Use of narrow-diameter implants in the posterior segments of the jaws: A retrospective observational study of 2 to 11 years

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The placement of narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) in the posterior region is still debated in view of the high biomechanical risks in these areas.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate the success and survival rates of NDIs restored with fixed prostheses in the posterior region (primary outcome) and analyze whether splinting multiple units (prosthesis design) affects the biological and mechanical complications (secondary outcome).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Dental records from 2 private clinics were reviewed for NDIs in the posterior region installed between 2009 and 2018. Ninety study participants (58 women and 32 men) aged between 21 and 84 years (mean age 49.9 years) were recalled for the assessment of implant survival and success of 160 NDIs previously provided for partial posterior edentulism associated with moderate horizontal bone loss or reduced interradicular space (105 premolars and 55 molars). The implants were restored with metal-ceramic single crowns or splinted multiple-unit prostheses, either screw-retained or cemented on custom (n=100) or stock titanium abutments (n=60). Peri-implant probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), bone quality, type of edentulism, and patient satisfaction were scored. The chi-squared test for independence and 2-sample Welch t test were performed for statistical analysis (α=.05).

RESULTS

The overall success rate was 89.37%. One implant had been removed 4 years after loading, another after 9 years, yielding a cumulative survival rate of 98.75%. Fourteen implants exhibited PPD > 5 mm. One implant and 1 abutment screw fractured, and 16 restorations demonstrated porcelain chipping. The chi-squared test showed no significant relationship between prosthetic design and complications whether biological (P=.087) or mechanical (P=.805). Eighty-two percent of patients were satisfied with esthetics, 76% with function, 85% with total duration of treatment, and 90% with overall treatment cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this retrospective study, NDIs may be considered a reliable option to replace posterior teeth. The prosthetic design had no significant impact on biological or mechanical complications.

Clinical evaluation of narrow-diameter implants versus standard-diameter implants with lateral bone augmentation in posterior jaws: Three-year results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of narrow-diameter implants (NDI) with standard-diameter implants (SDI) in conjunction with lateral bone augmentation in atrophic posterior jaws.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients were included and randomly assigned into two groups: Patients in Group 1 received NDI (Ø3.5 mm); patients in Group 2 received SDI (Ø4.3 mm) with simultaneous lateral bone augmentation. Implant survival rates, complications, crestal bone loss, peri-implant conditions, treatment cost, and patient satisfaction were compared.

RESULTS

Three patients dropped out the follow-up. No implant loss was observed. The difference in technical complication rates between the two groups was 3.8% (95% CI: -13.7% to 21.3%). No significant differences in crestal bone loss were found between two groups at 3-year follow-up (0.55 ± 0.76 vs 0.41 ± 0.41 mm, p = .429). A total of 20.8% (5/24) of NDI were diagnosed with mucositis and 8.3% (2/24) with peri-implantitis. A total of 17.4% (4/23) of SDI showed mucositis and (1/23) 4.3% showed peri-implantitis. The total cumulative cost of treatment per patient in Group 1 (2849.6 USD, 95% CI: 2726.8-2972.4) was significantly lower than that in Group 2 (3581.4 USD, 95% CI, 3460.9-3701.9) over the 3-year follow-up (p < .01). The patient satisfaction rating of operation was significantly higher in Group 1 (85.42 ± 7.41 vs 80.48 ± 7.95, p = .033).

DISCUSSION

NDI yielded favorable implant survival, acceptable technical and biological complications, and high patient satisfaction supporting single crowns in the atrophic posterior region after 3-year follow-up. NDI might be a reasonable alternative in horizontally deficient posterior jaws.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR1800020426.

Influence of risk factors on the long-term survival of oral rehabilitation with extra-narrow implants: a retrospective study

Objective

This study aimed to retrospectively collect clinical data to evaluate the influence of possible risk factors on the long-term success of implant treatment with extra-narrow (2.9 mm diameter) implants in a daily dental practice setting.

Methodology

Data were collected from records of patients who received at least one extra-narrow implant from 2012 to 2017, regarding implant survival, prosthesis survival, patient characteristics, and implant characteristics. The association between the dependent variables “implant survival”, “prosthesis survival,” and “adverse events” related to patient and implant characteristics was statistically evaluated by chi-square tests. Moreover, implant and prosthesis survival were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

Results

The sample was constituted of 58 patients (37 women and 21 men) with a mean age of 54.8 years old (SD: 12.5), followed up for up to eight years. In total, 86 extra-narrow implants were placed within this sample. Four implants were lost, resulting in an implant survival rate of 95.3%. A total of 55 prostheses were inserted and only one (1.8%) was lost, resulting in a prosthesis survival rate of 98.2%. The mean implant and prosthesis survival time was, respectively, 7.1 years and 6.3 years, according to the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. A correlation was found between smoking and implant loss, which makes implant loss eight times more likely to occur in smokers than non-smokers. A significant association was also found between prosthesis loss and previous need of prosthesis repair. However, it was not considered clinically relevant. No association was found between the occurrence of adverse events and later implant or prosthesis loss.

Conclusion

High implant and prosthesis survival rates were found in the long term for treatment with extra-narrow implants. Moreover, a significant correlation between smoking and implant loss was observed.

A retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes of implant restorations for posterior edentulous area: 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants vs 3 splinted implant-supported crowns

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of two types of implant restoration for posterior edentulous area, 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants and 3 implant-supported splinted crowns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data included 127 implant-supported fixed restorations in 85 patients: 37 restorations of 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants (2-IB), 37 restorations of 3 implant-supported splinted crowns (3-IC), and 53 single restorations (S) as controls. Peri-implantitis and mechanical complications that occurred for 14 years were analyzed by multivariable Cox regression model. Kaplan-Meier curves and the multivariable Cox regression model were used to analyze the success and survival of implants.

RESULTS

Peri-implantitis occurred in 28.4% of 2-IB group, 37.8% of 3-IC group, and 28.3% of S control group with no significant difference. According to the implant position, middle implants (P2) of the 3-IC group had the highest risk of peri-implantitis. The 3-IC group showed a lower mechanical complication rate (7.2%) than the 2-IB (16.2%) and S control group (20.8%). The cumulative success rate was 52.8% in S (control) group, 62.2% in 2-IB group, and 60.4% in 3-IC group. The cumulative survival rate was 98.1% in S (control) group, 98.6% in 2-IB group, and 95.5% in 3-IC group. There was no significant difference in the success and survival rate according to the restoration type.

CONCLUSION

The restoration type was not associated with the success and survival of implants. The risk of mechanical complications was reduced in 3 implant-supported splinted crowns. However, the middle implants of the 3 implant-supported splinted crowns had a higher risk of peri-implantitis.

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

OBJECTIVES

To report the clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes after placement of a newly developed Narrow-Diameter Implant (NDI) in patients with congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors (MLIs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with MLIs with a mesio-distal distance between the canine and the central incisor of 5.9-6.3mm received a dental implant with a diameter of 2.9mm (Test), while a diameter of 3.3mm (Control) was used when the distance was 6.4-7.1mm. After healing, a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia crown was fabricated. At the 1-year follow-up (T2), implant survival rate, marginal Crestal Bone Level (CBL) changes, biological and technical complications were registered. The aesthetic outcome was assessed by using the Copenhagen Index Score, and the patient-reported outcomes were recorded using the OHIP-49 questionnaire.

RESULTS

One-hundred patients rehabilitated with 100 dental implants Ø2.9mm (n = 50) or Ø3.3mm (n = 50) were included. One Ø3.3mm implant was lost and 7 patients dropped out of the study, yielding an implant survival rate of 99% (p = 1.000). At T2 a CBL of -0.19 ± 0.25 mm (Test) and -0.25 ± 0.31 mm (Control) was detected, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.342). Good to excellent aesthetic scores (i.e. 1-2) were recorded in most of cases. Technical complications (i.e. loss of retention, abutment fracture, chipping of veneering ceramic) occurred once in three patients with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). OHIP scores did not differ significantly at follow-ups between groups (p = 0.110).

CONCLUSION

The use of Ø2.9mm diameter implants represents as reliable a treatment option as Ø3.3mm implants, in terms of CBL changes, biological and technical complications. Favorable aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes were recorded for both groups.

[Computed X-ray microtomography of the junction of dental implants with standard and custom abutments]

THE AIM OF THE STUDY

Comparative study of the precision of the junction of modern implant systems with standard and custom abutments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was carried out by the method of computed X-ray microtomography on an X-ray microtomograph Heliscan micro CT using the ImageJ program in the laboratory «Systems for Microscopy and Analysis» of the Skolkovo Technopark. The measurement of the gap width between the implant and the abutment for each sample was carried out at 20 points according to the algorithm: the total length of the connection between the implant and the abutment; step (distance) between 5 equidistant points along the contact between the abutment and the implant; the measurements were repeated in 2 perpendicular sections along the joint node axis. The study was conducted on the example of seven implant systems common in Russia. The effect on the implant-abutment assembly of a multiple functional load of 250 N at an angle of 45° (7.6 million cycles) was studied.

RESULTS

It has been established that the precision of the junction of modern implants with standard abutments is different and is characterized by the length of the contact from 268 to 1300 µm, the gap at the level of the platform from 5.0 to 11.7 µm, and the asymmetry of the contact in diameter by 2.4-14.2 µm. Abutments individually made in modern CAD/CAM laboratories do not have significant dimensional differences with standard abutments, but they have technological defects. The functional load expands and deforms the gap between the implant and abutment junction in the upper half of their contact.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained demonstrate the capabilities of the computer X-ray microtomography method, which can be used to control the quality of manufacturing collapsible dental implants, the accuracy of manufacturing individual abutments in CAD/CAM laboratories, as well as in the development of new dental implant systems. The dimensional parameters of the junction node determine the advantages of the deep cone connection of the implant and the abutment.

A comparison of marginal bone loss, survival rate, and prosthetic complications in implant-supported splinted and nonsplinted restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To compare marginal bone loss (MBL), implant survival rate and prosthetic complications of implant-supported splinted and non-splinted restorations (NSR).

Settings and Design

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA). The PROSPERO registry, which keeps track of prospective systematic reviews, also received this paper (CRD42021229477).

Material and Methods

An electronic search was done in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Trials Register, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar searches were carried out. The search was limited to articles published in English and covered the period from January 2010 to August 2020.

Statistical Analysis Used

To conduct the meta analysis, researchers employed methodologies such as continuous measurement and odds ratios.

Results

For both qualitative and quantitative analysis, 19 scientific studies were chosen. 3682 implants were placed in 2099 patients with a mean age of 59 years (splinted, 2529; non-splinted, 1153); the mean age was not provided in 5 trials. For splinted restorations, there were statistically significant differences in MBL, indicating the former has less MBL than for NSR. Splinted restorations had much greater survival rates than NSR, according to a qualitative study. Rest prosthesis complications with or without splinting were essentially the same.

Conclusions

Splinted implant restorations lost less bone than non-splinted implant restorations, according to this meta analysis. This was particularly true for posterior restorations. Lower implant failure was associated with splinted restorations. Restorations with and without splinting had the same level of prosthetic problems.

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical and radiological outcomes of narrow-diameter implants (NDI) placed in pristine bone to standard-diameter implants placed in combination with horizontal bone augmentation procedures (SDI+A) for horizontally deficient alveolar ridges.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For this retrospective study, the outcome of 597 NDI (∅ 3.3 mm, 272 patients), inserted in pristine bone, were compared with 180 SDI (∅ 4.1 mm, 83 patients), inserted in combination with horizontal augmentation procedures. Oral health-related quality of life was assessed in patients available for recall.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 37.6 ± 40 months for the NDI and of 42.4 ± 49 months for the SDI+A, survival rates were 96.1% for NDI and 95.6% for SDI+A. Cumulative 5-year and 10-year implant survival rates were 94.3% and 92.2% for the NDI group and 97.0% and 88.3% for the SDI+A group, indicating no significant difference (p = .89). According to the criteria of Buser et al., an implant success rate of 84.3% was obtained for the NDI and an implant success rate of 81.3% for the SDI+A (p = .79). Regarding oral health-related quality of life, a similar and high patient satisfaction could be observed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

NDI without augmentation procedures showed a similar clinical outcome as SDI in combination with augmentation procedures after a follow-up of more than 3 years. Therefore, NDI might be a reasonable alternative in cases of horizontal bone atrophy (no clinical trial registration as patient inclusion started 2003).

Survival Rates of Splinted and Nonsplinted Prostheses Supported by Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, and mechanical complications of prostheses supported by splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic database (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and EMBASE) and manual searches up to May 2021 were conducted to identify studies comparing splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm). The primary outcome was implant survival rate. Secondary outcomes were marginal bone loss and mechanical complications. The quality of included studies and risk-of-bias were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and featured 1506 short implants (596 nonsplinted and 910 splinted) with a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 16 years. Quantitative analysis found no statistically significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) for survival rate (RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 1.01; p = 0.26)) and marginal bone loss (SMD = -0.08; 95% CI - 0.23, 0.07; p = 0.28). Veneer chipping, abutment screw breakage, screw loosening, and loss of retention were reported in the selected studies as common complications. However, no statistically significant difference was found between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.20, 1.54; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present meta-analysis, it might be concluded that splinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) do not present superior performance in survival rate, marginal bone maintenance and prevention of mechanical complications compared with single-unit prostheses.

Narrow Diameter Dental Implants as an Alternative Treatment for Atrophic Alveolar Ridges. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To determine the marginal bone loss and the survival, success and failure rates of narrow dental implants, a systematic literature search was carried out in the MEDLINE (Pubmed), Cochrane, Scopus, and Scielo databases for articles published between 2010 and 2021. The exclusion criteria were: systematic reviews, case reports, expert opinions; animal studies; samples of less than 10 subjects; follow-up periods of less than 36 months; smokers of minimum 10 cigarettes/day; and articles about mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage. Meta-analyses were performed to assess marginal bone loss and implant survival, success, and failure rates. Fifteen studies were included: 7 clinical trials, 3 randomized clinical trials, 3 cohort studies, and 2 case series. The total number of subjects was 773, in whom 1245 implants were placed. The survival rate for the narrow diameter implants was 97%, the success rate 96.8%, and the failure rate 3%. Marginal bone loss was 0.821 mm. All these data were evaluated at 36 months. Based on the literature, it can be considered that there is sufficient evidence to consider small diameter implants a predictable treatment option. These show favorable survival and success rates and marginal bone loss. All of them are comparable to those of standard diameter dental implants.

Influence of implant protrusion length on non-grafting osteotome sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant: a 3- to 9-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the influence of implant protrusion length (IPL) on the possible factors that affect the long-term outcomes utilizing non-grafting osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) with simultaneous implant placement, and to explore the optimal range of IPL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study design was adopted. The clinical and radiographic data of 105 implants in 65 patients were collected after 3-9 (mean 5.04) years follow-up. IPL was divided into three groups (group1, IPL<2mm; group2, 2mm≤IPL<4mm; group3, IPL≥4mm). Endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), bone to implant contact length (BICL), and percentage of ESBG (%ESBG) were used to evaluate non-grafting OSFE. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess the cumulative survival rate. Multiple linear regression model was used to explore the relationship between the possible influence factors and ESBG. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to explore the correlation of IPL with ESBG, MBL, BICL, and %ESBG.

RESULTS

A total of 102 implants in 62 patients fulfilled the survival criteria, giving the cumulative survival rates of 96.4% and 94.1% for implant-based analysis and patient-based analysis, respectively. The mean ESBG, MBL, and BICL at the latest follow-up were 1.95±0.88 mm, 0.58±0.68 mm, and 5.51±1.47 mm. ESBG was found to be positively correlated to IPL. A significant decreased bone formation efficiency was found when IPL was over 4 mm (P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

An optimal range of IPL within 4 mm was recommended for better long-term outcomes when applying non-grafting OSFE with simultaneous implant placement.

Influence of implant location on titanium-zirconium alloy narrow-diameter implants: A 1-year prospective study in smoking and nonsmoking populations

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr) alloy (Roxolid) narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) have been widely used for implant-supported prostheses in anterior and posterior regions in the jaws. However, the relationship between implant location and clinical outcome remains unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of NDIs placed in different regions of the jaws in both smokers and nonsmokers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty-four participants scheduled to receive NDIs for tooth rehabilitation were included, and the inserted NDIs were divided into 3 groups depending on their locations: implants used to restore anterior teeth, implants used to restore premolars, and implants used to restore molars. Crestal bone loss (CBL), implant survival and success rates, bleeding on probing (BOP), and pocket probing depth (PPD) were evaluated 6 and 12 months after implant loading (α=.017 for implant survival and success rates after Bonferroni correction, α=.05 for other parameters).

RESULTS

Statistical analysis of 6- and 12-month CBL of all participants presented no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups. For smokers, the molar group presented significantly more CBL than the premolar group (0.90 ±0.94 versus 0.16 ±0.27 mm, P=.027) at the 6-month examination. The implant survival rates were 95.65%, 100%, and 100% for anterior, premolar, and molar regions, respectively (P=.283). No statistically significant difference was observed regarding periodontal parameters (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant location has no influence on the clinical and radiographic parameters of Ti-Zr NDIs placed in a nonsmoking population. However, the combination of posterior location and smoking may induce higher risk of crestal bone loss. Caution should be taken when restoring molars for smokers with NDIs.

Clinical and radiographic assessment of narrow-diameter and regular-diameter implants in the anterior and posterior jaw: 2 to 6 years of follow-up

Purpose

The present retrospective clinical study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic parameters, complications, and satisfaction in patients who received fixed prostheses supported by narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) in the anterior and posterior jaw.

Methods

Patients aged ≥30 years who had NDI-supported fixed prostheses in the anterior or posterior region of either jaw for at least 2 years were included. Complications such as chipping of the crown; loosening or fracture of the screw, crown abutment, or implant; and loss of retention were recorded. Clinical peri-implant outcomes and crestal bone loss (CBL) were measured. A questionnaire was used to record responses regarding the aesthetics and function of the fixed restorations. Analysis of variance was used to assess the significance of between-group mean comparisons. The log-rank test was performed to analyze the influence of location and prosthesis type on technical complications.

Results

Seventy-one patients (mean age: 39.6 years) provided informed consent with a mean follow-up duration of 53 months. Only bleeding on probing showed a statistically significant difference between NDIs in the anterior and posterior regions. The complication rate for NDIs in the posterior region was significantly higher than that for NDIs in the anterior region (P=0.041). For NDIs, CBL was significantly higher around splinted crowns than single crowns (P=0.022). Overall mean patient satisfaction was 10.34±3.65 on a visual analogue scale.

Conclusions

NDIs in the anterior and posterior jaws functioned equally well in terms of peri-implant soft and hard tissue health and offered acceptable patient satisfaction and reasonable complication rates.

Are There Alternatives to Invasive Site Development for Dental Implants? Part I

Edentulous sites are often characterized by inadequate bone volume for dental implant therapy. Bone augmentation procedures for site development involve longer healing period and are often invasive, costly, and associated with postoperative morbidity. This article discusses alternatives to invasive bone grafting procedures that are often used to develop implant sites. Owing to the broad nature of this topic, it is presented in two articles. In part I, the use of short and narrow-diameter implants are discussed. Part II reviews the use of tilted as well as fewer implants to support a prosthesis.

Retrospective study on the clinical outcomes of small-diameter implants supporting fixed prostheses without bone augmentation in the posterior region after 2 to 12 years

BACKGROUND

Small-diameter implants (SDIs: diameter <3.5 mm) are often chosen as an alternative to bone augmentation in clinical practice, but the scientific evidence regarding SDI application in the posterior area remains deficient.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of SDIs supporting fixed prostheses without bone augmentation in the posterior region, and to analyze the potential influencing factors related to SDI failures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical and radiographic data of 243 SDIs in 156 patients were retrospectively assembled after 2 to 12 (mean 4.75) years of follow-up. Implant and prosthesis failures, mechanical and biological complications, and radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL) were evaluated. The influence of patient/implant characteristics and prosthetic design on SDI failures was investigated.

RESULTS

Five implants in five patients failed, contributing to 10-year cumulative survival rates of 97.9% on an implant-based analysis and 96.8% on a patient-based analysis. Biological complications and mechanical complications were detected in 22 (9.1%) and 31 (12.8%) of implants, respectively. No implant fracture was detected. Peri-implant MBL during 10 years was 0.60 ± 0.90 mm on average. The implant type (bone-level or tissue-level) was the only factor that significantly influenced SDI failures.

CONCLUSION

SDIs supporting fixed prostheses in the posterior region achieved predictable long-term clinical outcomes. However, tissue-level titanium SDIs should be avoided where possible.

How do peri-implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri-implantitis? A critical review

Objectives

The aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence.

Materials and methods

Publications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm.

Results

Full‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis.

Conclusion

Biologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.

Clinical and radiographic peri-implant health status around narrow diameter implant-supported single and splinted crowns

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing and comparing clinical and radiographic peri-implant status around narrow diameter implant-supported single crowns (NDISCs) and splinted crowns (NDISPs) are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to estimate and compare complication rates, patient satisfaction, peri-implant status and peri-implant bone loss (PBL) of NDISCs and NDISPs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients receiving narrow diameter implants (NDIs) in the posterior mandible were assessed. Technical complication and patient satisfaction were recorded. Clinical peri-implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BoP), probing depth (PD) and PBL were assessed. Technical complications and patient satisfaction were recorded. Log-rank test was computed to evaluate the influence of prostheses type and NDIs location on technical complications. P-value less than 0.05 was regarded as significant.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients (43 male and 35 females) agreed to follow up. The mean follow-up duration of the patients was 3.6 years. A total of 102 (43 NDISCs and 59 NDISPs) NDIs with moderately rough surfaces were included. No significant differences in PI, BoP, or PD were observed between NDISCs and NDISPs. The average PBL score was 1.17 (range: 0.03-4.15) at implant level and 1.14 (range: 0.03-4.14) at patient level. Seven implants and three patients showed peri-implantitis. The rates of technical complication of single crowns were significantly higher than those of splinted crowns (P = 0.036). PBL was significantly higher in molar sites than those in premolar sites (P = 0.041). A total of 67 patients (85.9%) were satisfied with the esthetics of the crowns, while a total of 59 patients (75.6%) were satisfied with the function of the crowns.

CONCLUSION

NDISCs and NDISPs offer high patient satisfaction and tolerable complication rates. Peri-implant conditions and peri-implant bone levels were comparable around NDISCs and NDISPs. However, bone loss of implants was higher in molar sites than those implants in premolar sites.

Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The decision to splint or to restore independently generally occurs during the planning stage, when the advantages and disadvantages of each clinical situation are considered based on the proposed treatment. However, clinical evidence to help clinicians make this decision is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the marginal bone loss, implant survival rate, and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was designed according to the Cochrane criteria for elaborating a systematic review and meta-analysis and adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Also, this review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42017080162). An electronic search in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted up to November 2017. A specific clinical question was structured according to the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) approach. The addressed focused question was "Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted?" The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods to assess the marginal bone loss, implant survival, and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 4215 implants were placed in 2185 patients (splinted, 2768; nonsplinted, 1447); the mean follow-up was 87.8 months (range=12-264 months). Quantitative analysis found no significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted restorations for marginal bone loss. The assessed studies reported that 75 implants failed (3.4%), of which 24 were splinted (99.1% of survival rate) and 51 were nonsplinted (96.5% of survival rate). Quantitative analysis of all studies showed statistically significant higher survival rates for splinted restorations than for nonsplinted restorations. Ceramic chipping, screw loosening, abutment screw breakage, and soft tissue inflammation were reported in the selected studies. The quantitative analysis found no statistically significant difference in the prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted restorations.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, it was concluded that there was no difference in the marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations; this is especially true for restorations in the posterior region. However, splinted restorations were associated with decreased implant failure.