Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Objective Restoring moderate to severely atrophic jaws with conventional implants often involves extensive surgical procedures. Basal implants, designed for immediate use in atrophied jawbones, offer an alternative by supporting single and multiple-unit restorations in the upper and lower jaws without the need for risky and expensive bone augmentation. However, their success rate diminishes significantly in areas with limited residual bone. This review aims to assess the applicability of basal implants compared to conventional endosseous implants. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted utilizing PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. The analysis focused on manuscripts and overviews published over a span of 20 years until September 8, 2022. Results Studies indicate that basal implants are a reliable option in specific cases, especially when other implants are not feasible, such as in severe alveolar bone atrophy. However, there is insufficient strong evidence to recommend basal implants over conventional ones. The evidence level of the reviewed papers all belong to evidence level V, which encompasses case reports and studies lacking controls. Conclusions The advantages of basal implants over conventional implants remain uncertain. The standard of care in dentistry should prioritize evidence-based practices, which commonly include the use of conventional implants. Further research is necessary to establish their efficacy and suitability in various clinical scenarios.
Objective Restoring moderate to severely atrophic jaws with conventional implants often involves extensive surgical procedures. Basal implants, designed for immediate use in atrophied jawbones, offer an alternative by supporting single and multiple-unit restorations in the upper and lower jaws without the need for risky and expensive bone augmentation. However, their success rate diminishes significantly in areas with limited residual bone. This review aims to assess the applicability of basal implants compared to conventional endosseous implants. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted utilizing PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. The analysis focused on manuscripts and overviews published over a span of 20 years until September 8, 2022. Results Studies indicate that basal implants are a reliable option in specific cases, especially when other implants are not feasible, such as in severe alveolar bone atrophy. However, there is insufficient strong evidence to recommend basal implants over conventional ones. The evidence level of the reviewed papers all belong to evidence level V, which encompasses case reports and studies lacking controls. Conclusions The advantages of basal implants over conventional implants remain uncertain. The standard of care in dentistry should prioritize evidence-based practices, which commonly include the use of conventional implants. Further research is necessary to establish their efficacy and suitability in various clinical scenarios.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.