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

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 29; no. S16; pp. 21 - 40
• Main Authors: Schiegnitz, Eik, Al‐Nawas, Bilal
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.10.2018
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone implants; Complications; Data processing; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - instrumentation; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure - statistics & numerical data; Dentistry; Humans; Inspection; Literature reviews; Mandible; Mandible - surgery; Maxilla; Maxilla - surgery; Meta-analysis; narrow diameter; Nondestructive testing; Quality assessment; Quality control; Rehabilitation; review; small dental implants; Statistical analysis; Survival; Survival Analysis; Teeth; meta-analysis; narrow diameter; small dental implants; review; survival
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13272

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.