Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical and radiographic assessment of narrow-diameter and regular-diameter implants in the anterior and posterior jaw: 2 to 6 years of follow-up

  • Alrabiah, Mohammed (Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, King Saud University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Deeb, Modhi Al (Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, King Saud University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Alsahhaf, Abdulaziz (Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, King Saud University College of Dentistry) ;
  • AlFawaz, Yasser F. (Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, King Saud University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Al-Aali, Khulud Abdulrahman (Department of Clinical Dental Sciences, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Vohra, Fahim (Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, King Saud University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Abduljabbar, Tariq (Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, King Saud University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2019.11.13
  • Accepted : 2019.12.15
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The present retrospective clinical study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic parameters, complications, and satisfaction in patients who received fixed prostheses supported by narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) in the anterior and posterior jaw. Methods: Patients aged ≥30 years who had NDI-supported fixed prostheses in the anterior or posterior region of either jaw for at least 2 years were included. Complications such as chipping of the crown; loosening or fracture of the screw, crown abutment, or implant; and loss of retention were recorded. Clinical peri-implant outcomes and crestal bone loss (CBL) were measured. A questionnaire was used to record responses regarding the aesthetics and function of the fixed restorations. Analysis of variance was used to assess the significance of between-group mean comparisons. The log-rank test was performed to analyze the influence of location and prosthesis type on technical complications. Results: Seventy-one patients (mean age: 39.6 years) provided informed consent with a mean follow-up duration of 53 months. Only bleeding on probing showed a statistically significant difference between NDIs in the anterior and posterior regions. The complication rate for NDIs in the posterior region was significantly higher than that for NDIs in the anterior region (P=0.041). For NDIs, CBL was significantly higher around splinted crowns than single crowns (P=0.022). Overall mean patient satisfaction was 10.34±3.65 on a visual analogue scale. Conclusions: NDIs in the anterior and posterior jaws functioned equally well in terms of periimplant soft and hard tissue health and offered acceptable patient satisfaction and reasonable complication rates.

Keywords

References

  1. Nisand D, Renouard F. Short implant in limited bone volume. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:72-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12053
  2. Bozkaya S, Durmuslar MC, Cakir M, Erkmen E. Use of alveolar distraction osteogenesis for implant placement: a case report with eight-year follow-up. Aust Dent J 2016;61:252-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12366
  3. Jung RE, Herzog M, Wolleb K, Ramel CF, Thoma DS, Hammerle CH. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing small buccal dehiscence defects around dental implants treated with guided bone regeneration or left for spontaneous healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:348-54.
  4. Gehrke SA, Mate Sanchez de Val JE, Ramirez Fernandez MP, Shibli JA, Rossetti PH, Calvo Guirado JL. Stability and crestal bone behavior following simultaneous placement of multiple dental implants (two or more) with the bone splitting technique: a clinical and radiographic evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:123-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12424
  5. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M. Clinical outcomes of GBR procedures to correct peri-implant dehiscences and fenestrations: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20 Suppl 4:113-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01781.x
  6. Zhang G, Yuan H, Chen X, Wang W, Chen J, Liang J, et al. A three-dimensional finite element study on the biomechanical simulation of various structured dental implants and their surrounding bone tissues. Int J Dent 2016;2016:4867402.
  7. Iegami CM, Uehara PN, Sesma N, Pannuti CM, Tortamano Neto P, Mukai MK. Survival rate of titanium-zirconium narrow diameter dental implants versus commercially pure titanium narrow diameter dental implants: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:1015-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12527
  8. Alsahhaf A, Alshiddi IF, Alshagroud RS, Al-Aali KA, Vohra F, Abduljabbar T. Clinical and radiographic indices around narrow diameter implants placed in different glycemic-level patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:621-6.
  9. Alshiddi IF, Alsahhaf A, Alshagroud RS, Al-Aali KA, Vohra F, Abduljabbar T. Clinical, radiographic, and restorative peri-implant measurements of narrow and standard diameter implants in obese and nonobese patients: a 3-year retrospective follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:656-61.
  10. Alasqah MN, Alfawaz YF, Aldahiyan N, Vohra F, Alotaibi BM, Abduljabbar T. Longitudinal assessment of clinical and radiographic periimplant status around narrow and regular diameter implants placed in cigarette-smokers and nonsmokers. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:910-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12751
  11. Al-Johany SS, Al Amri MD, Alsaeed S, Alalola B. Dental implant length and diameter: a proposed classification scheme. J Prosthodont 2017;26:252-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12517
  12. Trbakovic A, Bongenhielm U, Thor A. A clinical and radiological long-term follow-up study of narrow diameter implants in the aesthetic area. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:598-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12627
  13. Galindo-Moreno P, Nilsson P, King P, Worsaae N, Schramm A, Padial-Molina M, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of early loaded narrow-diameter implants: 5-year follow-up of a multicenter prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1584-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13029
  14. de Souza AB, Sukekava F, Tolentino L, Cesar-Neto JB, Garcez-Filho J, Araujo MG. Narrow- and regular-diameter implants in the posterior region of the jaws to support single crowns: a 3-year split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:100-7.
  15. 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 2017;88:338-47. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.160510
  16. Tolentino L, Sukekava F, Garcez-Filho J, Tormena M, Lima LA, Araujo MG. One-year follow-up of titanium/zirconium alloy X commercially pure titanium narrow-diameter implants placed in the molar region of the mandible: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:393-8.
  17. 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 2011;13:95-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00188.x
  18. Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Narrow-diameter implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29 Suppl 16:21-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13272
  19. Lee JS, Kim HM, Kim CS, Choi SH, Chai JK, Jung UW. Long-term retrospective study of narrow implants for fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:847-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02472.x
  20. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 2014;12:1495-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
  21. Akram Z, Vohra F, Bukhari IA, Sheikh SA, Javed F. Clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters and proinflammatory cytokine levels among cigarette smokers, smokeless tobacco users, and nontobacco users. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:76-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12575
  22. Galgut P. A comparison of different indices used in the clinical assessment of plaque and gingival bleeding. Clin Oral Investig 1999;3:96-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050085
  23. Tonetti MS, Chapple IL, Jepsen S, Sanz M. Primary and secondary prevention of periodontal and peri-implant diseases: introduction to, and objectives of the 11th European Workshop on Periodontology consensus conference. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42 Suppl 16:S1-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12382
  24. Alkhudhairy F, Vohra F, Al-Kheraif AA, Akram Z. Comparison of clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters among obese and non-obese patients: a 5-year study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:756-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12633
  25. Alasqah MN, Al-Shibani N, Al-Aali KA, Qutub OA, Abduljabbar T, Akram Z. Clinical indices and local levels of inflammatory biomarkers in per-implant health of obese and nonobese individuals. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:80-4.
  26. Tecco S, Grusovin MG, Sciara S, Bova F, Pantaleo G, Cappare P. The association between three attitude-related indexes of oral hygiene and secondary implant failures: a retrospective longitudinal study. Int J Dent Hyg 2018;16:372-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12300
  27. Lin CY, Chen Z, Pan WL, Wang HL. The effect of supportive care in preventing peri-implant diseases and implant loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:714-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13496
  28. Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Long-term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: a retrospective study with at least 8-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:76-81.
  29. Al-Aali KA, ArRejaie AS, Alrahlah A, AlFawaz YF, Abduljabbar T, Vohra F. Clinical and radiographic peri-implant health status around narrow diameter implant-supported single and splinted crowns. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:386-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12718
  30. Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17 Suppl 2:8-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01360.x

Cited by

  1. Preliminary study for fully digitally guided implant treatment with narrow implants in the anterior region vol.44, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.21851/obr.44.03.202009.109
  2. Digitally guided surgery and prosthesis with narrow implants in the anterior region vol.45, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.21851/obr.45.01.202103.29
  3. Narrow-diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.50, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.10.001
  4. Clinical, radiographic and restorative parameters for short tuberosity implants placed in smokers: a retrospective study with 5 year follow-up vol.109, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-021-00623-2
  5. Efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin in promoting the healing of extraction sockets: a systematic review vol.7, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00393-0