» Articles » PMID: 27747650

A Meta-analysis on the Effect of Implant Characteristics on the Survival of the Wide-diameter Implant

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2016 Oct 18
PMID 27747650
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purposes of the study are to study the implant survival of the wide-diameter implant and to analyze if the length, the implant surface, or the placement location has any effect on its survival. Electronic databases were searched from inception to Dec 2014. Studies included in the review had implants placed in areas of adequate bone width and had clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection. Immediately placed and immediately loaded implants were excluded. A meta-analysis was done using the "random effects" model on the included studies. And, a meta-regression was used to evaluate the effects of location, length, and surface on the implant survival. Of the six studies selected, three evaluated surface-treated implants and three machined implants. The overall pooled survival rate of the wide implant is 96.3 %. The meta-regression showed that when using a wide implant, neither its surface nor its length nor its position in the maxilla or mandible adversely affected its survival (P > 0.05). This meta-analysis concluded that the location, length, and surface of the wide-diameter implant did not affect its survival and therefore suggested that when the conditions of the implant site corresponded to the inclusion criteria of our meta-analysis, choosing a wide-diameter implant in the posterior mandible or maxilla, where implant length may be limited by the nerve or the sinus, the use of a short implant regardless of its surface would not affect its survival.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness of ultra-wide implants in the mandibular and maxillary posterior areas: a 5-year retrospective clinical study.

Kim S, Kim H, Yun P, Kim Y J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023; 49(1):13-20.

PMID: 36859371 PMC: 9985996. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2023.49.1.13.


A Six-Year Prospective Comparative Study of Wide and Standard Diameter Implants in the Maxillary and Mandibular Posterior Area.

Wadhwa P, Kim S, Kim H, Lim H, Jia Q, Jiang H Medicina (Kaunas). 2021; 57(10).

PMID: 34684046 PMC: 8540610. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57101009.


Comparative Evaluation of Dental Implant Failure among Healthy and Well-Controlled Diabetic Patients-A 3-Year Retrospective Study.

Sghaireen M, Alduraywish A, Srivastava K, Shrivastava D, Patil S, Al Habib S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(14).

PMID: 32708165 PMC: 7400304. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17145253.

References
1.
Tawil G, Mawla M, Gottlow J . Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the 5-mm diameter regular-platform Brånemark fixture: 2- to 5-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002; 4(1):16-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00147.x. View

2.
Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Enbom L, Engevall S, Engquist B, Eriksson A . Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol. 1988; 59(5):287-96. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1988.59.5.287. View

3.
Schincaglia G, Marzola R, Giovanni G, Chiara C, Scotti R . Replacement of mandibular molars with single-unit restorations supported by wide-body implants: immediate versus delayed loading. A randomized controlled study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23(3):474-80. View

4.
Davarpanah M, Martinez H, Kebir M, Etienne D, Tecucianu J . Wide-diameter implants: new concepts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2002; 21(2):149-59. View

5.
Randow K, Ericsson I, Nilner K, Petersson A, Glantz P . Immediate functional loading of Brånemark dental implants. An 18-month clinical follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999; 10(1):8-15. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100102.x. View