Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical evaluation of 3.0-mm narrow-diameter implants: a retrospective study with up to 5 years of observation

  • InKyung Hwang (Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University and Seoul National University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Tae-Il Kim (Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University and Seoul National University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Young-Dan Cho (Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University and Seoul National University Dental Hospital)
  • Received : 2023.02.04
  • Accepted : 2023.04.21
  • Published : 2024.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a single type of narrow-diameter implant (NDI) by investigating its survival rate and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). In addition, variables possibly related to implant survival and MBL were investigated to identify potential risk factors. Methods: The study was conducted as a retrospective study involving 49 patients who had received 3.0-mm diameter TSIII implants (Osstem Implant Co.) at Seoul National University Dental Hospital. In total, 64 implants were included, and dental records and radiographic data were collected from 2017 to 2022. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazard model were used to estimate the implant survival rate and to investigate the effects of age, sex, jaw, implant location, implant length, the stage of surgery, guided bone regeneration, type of implant placement, and the surgeon's proficiency (resident or professor) on implant survival. The MBL of the NDIs was measured, and the factors influencing MBL were evaluated. Results: The mean observation period was 30.5 months (interquartile range, 26.75-45 months), and 6 out of 64 implants failed. The survival rate of the NDIs was 90.6%, and the multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age was associated with implant failure (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.31, P=0.01). The mean MBL was 0.44±0.75 mm, and no factors showed statistically significant associations with greater MBL. Conclusions: NDIs can be considered a primary alternative when standard-diameter implants are unsuitable. However, further studies are required to confirm their long-term stability.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a grant from Osstem Implant (No. ERI22022).

References

  1. Pjetursson BE, Asgeirsson AG, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29 Suppl:308-24. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g5.2
  2. Al-Nawas B, Schiegnitz E. Augmentation procedures using bone substitute materials or autogenous bone - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014;7 Suppl 2:S219-34.
  3. Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990;1:33-40. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1990.010105.x
  4. Nyman S, Lang NP, Buser D, Bragger U. Bone regeneration adjacent to titanium dental implants using guided tissue regeneration: a report of two cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:9-14.
  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. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Carinci F. Clinical outcome of narrow diameter implants: a retrospective study of 510 implants. J Periodontol 2008;79:49-54. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070248
  7. Romeo E, Lops D, Amorfini L, Chiapasco M, Ghisolfi M, Vogel G. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of small-diameter (3.3-mm) implants followed for 1-7 years: a longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:139-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01191.x
  8. Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Clinical evaluation of small-diameter implants in single-tooth and multiple-implant restorations: a 7-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:703-9.
  9. Zinsli B, Sagesser T, Mericske E, Mericske-Stern R. Clinical evaluation of small-diameter ITI implants: a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:92-9.
  10. Klein MO, Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29 Suppl:43-54. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.3
  11. Bidra AS, Almas K. Mini implants for definitive prosthodontic treatment: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:156-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60035-9
  12. 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
  13. Cruz RS, Lemos CA, de Batista VE, Yogui FC, Oliveira HF, Verri FR. Narrow-diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021;50:674-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.10.001
  14. Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:486-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01132.x
  15. Quek CE, Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Load fatigue performance of a single-tooth implant abutment system: effect of diameter. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:929-36. 
  16. 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
  17. Ivanoff CJ, Sennerby L, Johansson C, Rangert B, Lekholm U. Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants. An experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26:141-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80837-9
  18. Hammerle CH, Chen ST, Wilson TG Jr. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19 Suppl:26-8.
  19. Andersen E, Saxegaard E, Knutsen BM, Haanaes HR. A prospective clinical study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of narrow-diameter threaded implants in the anterior region of the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:217-24.
  20. Moraguez O, Vailati F, Grutter L, Sailer I, Belser UC. Four-unit fixed dental prostheses replacing the maxillary incisors supported by two narrow-diameter implants - a five-year case series. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:887-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12895
  21. Woo IH, Kim JW, Kang SY, Kim YH, Yang BE. Narrow-diameter implants with conical connection for restoring the posterior edentulous region. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;38:31.
  22. Zweers J, van Doornik A, Hogendorf EA, Quirynen M, Van der Weijden GA. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of narrow- vs. regular-diameter dental implants: a 3-year follow-up. A retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:149-56.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12309
  23. Zupnik J, Kim SW, Ravens D, Karimbux N, Guze K. Factors associated with dental implant survival: a 4-year retrospective analysis. J Periodontol 2011;82:1390-5. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.100685
  24. Smith RA, Berger R, Dodson TB. Risk factors associated with dental implants in healthy and medically compromised patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:367-72.
  25. Kang DY, Kim M, Lee SJ, Cho IW, Shin HS, Caballe-Serrano J, et al. Early implant failure: a retrospective analysis of contributing factors. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2019;49:287-98. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2019.49.5.287
  26. Park YS, Lee BA, Choi SH, Kim YT. Evaluation of failed implants and reimplantation at sites of previous dental implant failure: survival rates and risk factors. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2022;52:230-41. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2105020251
  27. Moy PK, Medina D, Shetty V, Aghaloo TL. Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:569-77.
  28. Schimmel M, Muller F, Suter V, Buser D. Implants for elderly patients. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:228-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12166
  29. el Askary AS, Meffert RM, Griffin T. Why do dental implants fail? Part I. Implant Dent 1999;8:173-85. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199908020-00011
  30. Lee KJ, Kim YG, Park JW, Lee JM, Suh JY. Influence of crown-to-implant ratio on periimplant marginal bone loss in the posterior region: a five-year retrospective study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2012;42:231-6. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2012.42.6.231
  31. Kim MJ, Yun PY, Chang NH, Kim YK. The long-term evaluation of the prognosis of implants with acid-etched surfaces sandblasted with alumina: a retrospective clinical study. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;42:10.
  32. Draenert FG, Sagheb K, Baumgardt K, Kammerer PW. Retrospective analysis of survival rates and marginal bone loss on short implants in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:1063-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02266.x
  33. Galindo-Moreno P, Nilsson P, King P, Becktor J, Speroni S, Schramm A, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of early loaded narrow diameter implants - 1-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:609-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02254.x
  34. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13046
  35. Sakka S, Baroudi K, Nassani MZ. Factors associated with early and late failure of dental implants. J Investig Clin Dent 2012;3:258-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-1626.2012.00162.x
  36. el Askary AS, Meffert RM, Griffin T. Why do dental implants fail? Part II. Implant Dent 1999;8:265-77. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199903000-00008
  37. Levin L, Schwartz-Arad D. The effect of cigarette smoking on dental implants and related surgery. Implant Dent 2005;14:357-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000187956.59276.f8
  38. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p.199-220. 
  39. Sakka S, Coulthard P. Bone quality: a reality for the process of osseointegration. Implant Dent 2009;18:480-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bb840d