Influence of Implant Diameter on Implant Survival Rate and Clinical Outcomes in the Posterior Area: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Apr 21

PMID 37085829

Authors

Paolo Pesce

Massimo Del Fabbro

Laura Modenese

Stefano Sandron

Luca Francetti

Gaetano Isola

Luigi Canullo

Maria Menini

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis that the diameter of implants inserted in the posterior area affects implant survival rate, prosthetic survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD)).

Materials And Methods: An electronic search of studies published until December 2021 was done on three databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane) independently by two authors. Clinical trials comparing implant survival rate, BoP, MBL and PPD among narrow diameter implants (NDI: ≥ 3.0 mm to < 3.75 mm) and regular diameter implants (RDI ≥ 3.75 mm to < 5 mm) were included. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies and to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for non-randomized ones. A pair-wise meta-analysis was conducted on the included studies.

Results: Seven articles were included out of the 4291 identified from the digital research. Overall, a total of 939 implants were inserted (319 NDI, 620 RDI). Only one study was judged at serious risk of bias. No statistically significant difference was found in implant survival rate (risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI [0.98 to 1.04], P = 0.67)) while the difference was significant for BoP (mean difference 2.89 (95% CI [0.30 to 5.48] mm, P = 0.03)) with higher values for NDI. Higher MBL was identified among regular diameter implants (mean difference -0.15 mm (95% CI [-0.32 to 0.01 mm], P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were identified for prosthetic survival and PPD.

Conclusions: No differences were found in implant survival rate between narrow and regular implants. A higher BoP was identified among narrow implants, but there was no higher bone loss. It is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about the use of narrow-diameter implants in the posterior region.

Citing Articles

An In Vitro Investigation of the Role of Implant Abutment Materials on the Fracture Resistance and Failure Mode of Implant-Supported Restorations.

Obulareddy V, Dixit A, Takhellambam V, Verma R, Deepyanti , Kumar S Cureus. 2024; 16(2):e54624.

PMID: 38529462 PMC: 10962928. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54624.

References

Gonzalez-Valls G, Roca-Millan E, Cespedes-Sanchez J, Gonzalez-Navarro B, Torrejon-Moya A, Lopez-Lopez J . Narrow Diameter Dental Implants as an Alternative Treatment for Atrophic Alveolar Ridges. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(12). PMC: 8231146. DOI: 10.3390/ma14123234. View

Menini M, Pesce P, Pera F, Baldi D, Pulliero A, Izzotti A . MicroRNAs in Peri-implant Crevicular Fluid Can Predict Peri-implant Bone Resorption: Clinical Trial with a 5-Year Follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021; 36(6):1148-1157. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.9040. View

Esposito M, Grusovin M, Kwan S, Worthington H, Coulthard P . Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; (3):CD003607. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003607.pub3. View

Gottlow J, Dard M, Kjellson F, Obrecht M, Sennerby L . Evaluation of a new titanium-zirconium dental implant: a biomechanical and histological comparative study in the mini pig. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 14(4):538-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00289.x. View

Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M . Implants (3.3 mm diameter) for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior regions: a retrospective clinical study with up to 11 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009; 13(2):95-103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00188.x. View

Zinsli B, Sagesser T, Mericske E, Mericske-Stern R . Clinical evaluation of small-diameter ITI implants: a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19(1):92-9. View

Al-Johany S, Al Amri M, Alsaeed S, Alalola B . Dental Implant Length and Diameter: A Proposed Classification Scheme. J Prosthodont. 2016; 26(3):252-260. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12517. View

Menini M, Pesce P, Baldi D, Vargas G, Pera P, Izzotti A . Prediction of Titanium Implant Success by Analysis of microRNA Expression in Peri-Implant Tissue. A 5-Year Follow-Up Study. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(6). PMC: 6617176. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8060888. View

Shemtov-Yona K, Rittel D, Levin L, Machtei E . Effect of dental implant diameter on fatigue performance. Part I: mechanical behavior. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 16(2):172-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00477.x. View

10.

Araujo M, Lindhe J . Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005; 32(2):212-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x. View

11.

Esposito M, Grusovin M, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington H, Coulthard P . The efficacy of horizontal and vertical bone augmentation procedures for dental implants - a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010; 2(3):167-84. View

12.

Saad M, Assaf A, Gerges E . The Use of Narrow Diameter Implants in the Molar Area. Int J Dent. 2016; 2016:8253090. PMC: 4879234. DOI: 10.1155/2016/8253090. View

13.

Pieri F, Forlivesi C, Caselli E, Corinaldesi G . Narrow- (3.0 mm) Versus Standard-Diameter (4.0 and 4.5 mm) Implants for Splinted Partial Fixed Restoration of Posterior Mandibular and Maxillary Jaws: A 5-Year Retrospective Cohort Study. J Periodontol. 2016; 88(4):338-347. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2016.160510. View

14.

Menini M, Setti P, Pera P, Pera F, Pesce P . Peri-implant Tissue Health and Bone Resorption in Patients with Immediately Loaded, Implant-Supported, Full-Arch Prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31(4):327-333. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5567. View

15.

Mangano F, Shibli J, Sammons R, Iaculli F, Piattelli A, Mangano C . Short (8-mm) locking-taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: a prospective clinical study with 1-to 10-years of follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 25(8):933-40. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12181. View

16.

Lee T, Ueno T, Nomura N, Wakabayashi N, Hanawa T . Titanium-Zirconium Binary Alloy as Dental Implant Material: Analysis of the Influence of Compositional Change on Mechanical Properties and In Vitro Biologic Response. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31(3):547-54. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4349. View

17.

Alrabiah M . Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018; 10(1):e12367. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12367. View

18.

Kobayashi E, Matsumoto S, Doi H, Yoneyama T, Hamanaka H . Mechanical properties of the binary titanium-zirconium alloys and their potential for biomedical materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995; 29(8):943-50. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820290805. View

19.

Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J . Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol. 2004; 31(10):820-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00565.x. View

20.

Pesce P, Menini M, Santori G, De Giovanni E, Bagnasco F, Canullo L . Photo and Plasma Activation of Dental Implant Titanium Surfaces. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Pre-Clinical Studies. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(9). PMC: 7565759. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9092817. View