The Mini Dental Implant in Fixed and Removable Prosthetics: A Review

Flanagan, Dennis; Mascolo, Andrea

doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-10-00052.1

Cited by 56 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Periodontal parameter data were compiled on peri-implant mucosal response, supra gingival plaque, gingival inflammation, bleeding on probing, amount of keratinized gingival around abutment and probing length from the gingival margin (Figs. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10).…”

Section: Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Pilot Study of Mini Implants as a Treatment Option for Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Ridges with Sub-Optimal Bone Volume

Balaji

Mohamed

Kathiresan

2010

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the past decade, many implants ranging from 1.8 to 2.5 mm in diameter have been promoted for long-term applications [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Pilot Study of Mini Implants as a Treatment Option for Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Ridges with Sub-Optimal Bone Volume

Balaji

Mohamed

Kathiresan

2010

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[10][11][12] Mini implants loading can delay after 3 months from implant placement, or it can be loaded immediately within the atrophic bone according to the amount of the primary stability, the insertion torque should be at least 30 Ncm. [13] The minimum number of mini implants required for retaining complete removable dentures may be 6 in the maxilla and 4 in the mandible. The implants should be parallel to each other, and the degree of malalignment should not exceed 20° to allow ease denture seating.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The implants should be parallel to each other, and the degree of malalignment should not exceed 20° to allow ease denture seating. [13][14][15] Some clinical reports have claimed that mini implant used for retaining mandibular dentures are successful. [16,17] Some other studies recorded the survival rate of mini implant-supported mandibular complete dentures is in the range of 81-97.4%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mini dental implant overdenture as an alternative treatment (systematic review)

Rostom¹,

Fahd²

2017

IDJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patients with narrow alveolar ridges requiring dental implants may be managed by residual ridge augmentation or guided bone regeneration procedures followed by the placement of conventional diameter implants. All these procedures need more time, more cost, and more clinician experience. Mini implants are an alternative option in case of the reduced residual alveolar ridge. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the crestal bone changes, survival rates, and patient satisfaction with mini dental implant. Methodology: An electronic searching was performed in the following databases, Pubmed (1990 to 25 October 2016 and Cochran (1999Cochran ( to 2016. In addition, hand searching was performed in implant-related journals and through the references of included studies. Result: Four articles resulted after the final filtration, from which three studies were randomized controlled trials and one non-randomized controlled trial. The follow-up period was extended at least 1 year in all studies. The results of the included studies reveal that the marginal bone loss, survival rate, and patient satisfaction of the mini implant were comparable to those resulting from the conventional implants. Conclusion: No significant difference was observed between the mini implant and the conventional implants regarding the marginal bone loss, implant survival rate, and patient satisfaction. However, this review depends on few numbers of studies that accompanied with a high degree of bias, so more evidence to validate this treatment is still necessary. Clinical Significance: The flapless technique of the small implant diameter offers the advantage of less invasion and less trauma to the tissue. Furthermore, the mini implants approach makes promise solution for those patients with medical and/or financial problems to use conventional implants so that they increase the clinical applications of dental implants.

show abstract

“…Moreover, with the absence of palatal portion, which indeed sharing in support and retention, may cause inconspicuous success rate. The minimum number of MDIs required for convenient retention of complete removable dentures may be 6 in the maxilla and 4 in the mandible [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Palatal Coverage on the Retention Force and Fatigue Resistance of Mini Dental Implant Maxillary Overdenture

Mekawy¹,

Khalifa²

2016

J Oral Hyg Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: evaluation and comparison of the influence of palatal coverage on the retention force and fatigue resistance of attachment system of mini dental implant (MDIs) overdenture. Materials and methods:heat-cured polymethylmethacrylate resin maxillary acrylic resin models were used for this study. Five 2.5 × 13 mm dummy mini-dental implants with O-ring attachment were placed parallel to each other. Ten palateless implant retained overdenture, and ten full coverage implant retained overdenture were constructed on the models. Both of them, retention and cyclic fatigue tests of each overdenture were measured using BENDAO tools of the universal testing machine and average reading was calculated.Result: (Group I) mini-dental implant overdenture with palatal coverage recorded higher retention means value (25.55 ± 2.17 N) than (group II) mini-dental implant overdenture without palatal coverage (palate-less overdenture) (24.215 ± 3.64 N). the cyclic fatigue test for the (group I) mini-dental implant overdenture with palatal coverage Showed that the retention decreased significantly with time as indicated by ANOVA test (p < 0.05), While for (group II) mini-dental implant overdenture without palatal coverage (palate-less overdenture) was found that the retention was insignificant decrease in the first month; then it significantly decrease in the remaining periods of the study as indicated by ANOVA test (p < 0.05). Conclusion:Within the limitations of this in vitro study it can be concluded that the mini-dental implant overdenture with palatal coverage showed superior retentive properties when compared with mini-dental implant overdenture without palatal coverage (palate-less overdenture). Both study groups showed a reduction in retention after cyclic fatigue period.

show abstract

The Mini Dental Implant in Fixed and Removable Prosthetics: A Review

Cited by 56 publications

References 21 publications

A Pilot Study of Mini Implants as a Treatment Option for Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Ridges with Sub-Optimal Bone Volume

A Pilot Study of Mini Implants as a Treatment Option for Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Ridges with Sub-Optimal Bone Volume

Mini dental implant overdenture as an alternative treatment (systematic review)

The Influence of Palatal Coverage on the Retention Force and Fatigue Resistance of Mini Dental Implant Maxillary Overdenture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About