The Influence of Implant Diameter on Its Survival: A Meta‐Analysis Based on Prospective Clinical Trials

Abstract

This meta-analysis showed that narrower implants (<3.3 mm) had significantly lower survival rates compared with wider implants (≥3.3 mm). Other variables, such as type of prosthesis, implant surface, and timing of prosthetic loading, were found to have influenced the implant survival rates.

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

“…The between‐group difference was statistically significant ( P = 0.001). When comparing prosthetic outcomes reported in the literature with regard to the complications reported in this study, trends appear similar 1 , 4 . Decementation and screw loosening were the most frequent complications in the NDI group, occurring at 8.2% and 6.1%, respectively.…”

“…Romeo et al 28 reported survival rates of 92% to 97.7% for NDIs and SDIs supporting both single restorations and FPDs in anterior and posterior areas over a 7‐year observation period. However, a recent meta‐analysis by Ortega‐Oller et al 1 showed NDIs could be at higher risk for implant failure. In particular, it was found that NDIs with a diameter <3.3 mm had failure rates 3.92 times greater than implants with a diameter ≥3.3 mm after an average follow‐up time of 4 years.…”

“…Narrow‐diameter implants (NDIs) (<3.3 mm) 1 are available from almost all implant manufacturers and are designed for specific clinical indications such as restricted interdental spaces, mandibular incisors, and maxillary lateral teeth 2–6 . Successful use of NDIs in these situations encouraged clinicians to expand their clinical application.…”

Evaluating the biomechanical effects of implant diameter in case of facial trauma to an edentulous atrophic mandible: a 3D finite element analysis

“…Implants with narrow diametes of 3.0 to 3.25 mm are well documented only for single-tooth, non-load-bearing regions [25]. A meta-analysis study showed that narrower implants had significantly lower survival rates compared with wider implants [26]. Moreover, most authors advice at least 1 mm residual bone present to the adjacent to the implant surface [25].…”

One‐year clinical outcomes of locking taper Equator attachments retaining mandibular overdentures to narrow diameter implants

“…4,[7][8][9] Substantial evidence indicates that treatment with mandibular CD is often unsuccessful, and thus, the implant-retained mandibular overdentures (MOs) should be the minimum treatment offered to edentulous patients. 13,14 Different options have been proposed to overcome these limitations, such as narrow diameter implants (NDI). 12 These clinical limitations, together with the continuous resorption of the alveolar ridge and significant decrease in bone volume, mainly in the horizontal sense, may limit the utility of standard diameter implants in this population in the absence of additional surgical techniques for bone regeneration.…”