nach oben

Clinical Oral Investigations

Erschienen in:

01.03.2024 | Review

Clinical outcomes of narrow- and regular-diameter implants with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Yan Zhang, Guochen Wen, Wei Dong

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 3/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla, with implant survival rate (ISR) as the primary outcome. Additionally, secondary outcomes such as peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), mechanical complications, and biological complications were also considered.

Materials and methods

A thorough literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing outcomes of NDIs and RDIs with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla published up to February 2024. Only studies with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months were selected for analysis. Meta-analysis was performed if at least two articles with similar characteristics were available.

Results

Of the 288 articles initially considered, 5 were included in the analysis, involving 282 NDIs and 100 RDIs. At the 36-month follow-up, no statistically significant differences in ISR, which ranged 93.8–100% for NDIs and were 100% for RDIs, were observed between the two groups (relative risk, 0.989; 95% confidence interval, 0.839–1.165; p = 0.896). Similarly, MBL and PPD did not differ significantly between the two groups. Soft tissue dehiscence was the most common complication found in RDIs.

Conclusion

The results indicate that NDIs yield clinical outcomes similar to those of RDIs with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla over a 36-month follow-up period.

Clinical relevance

Considering the similar clinical outcomes, the shortened treatment duration and more rapid esthetic improvement associated with NDIs may render them preferrable to RDIs with bone augmentation, particularly in this esthetic zone.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Liao P, Fan Y, Nathanson D (2019) Evaluation of maxillary anterior teeth width: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 122:275–281e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.015CrossRefPubMed

Wittneben JG, Molinero-Mourelle P, Hamilton A, Alnasser M, Obermaier B, Morton D, Gallucci GO, Wismeijer D (2023) Clinical performance of immediately placed and immediately loaded single implants in the esthetic zone: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 34 Suppl 26:266–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14172CrossRef

Lee JH, Jung EH, Jeong SN (2022) Profilometric, volumetric, and esthetic analysis of guided bone regeneration with L-shaped collagenated bone substitute and connective tissue graft in the maxillary esthetic zone: a case series with 1-year observational study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 24:655–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13116CrossRefPubMed

Yang X, Zhou T, Zhou N, Man Y (2019) The thickness of labial bone affects the esthetics of immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the esthetic zone: a prospective cohort study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 21:482–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12785CrossRefPubMed

Calvani L, Calvani L, Hirayama H, Pissiotis A, Michalakis K (2019) Association between increased concavity of Maxillary Labial alveolar bone and decreased labial cortical bone thickness: a Cone Beam computed tomography aided Retrospective Cohort Study. J Prosthodont 28:244–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12648CrossRefPubMed

AlTarawneh S, AlHadidi A, Hamdan AA, Shaqman M, Habib E (2018) Assessment of Bone dimensions in the Anterior Maxilla: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study. J Prosthodont 27:321–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12675CrossRefPubMed

Todorovic VS, Postma TC, Hoffman J, van Zyl AW (2023) Buccal and palatal alveolar bone dimensions in the anterior maxilla: a micro-CT study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 25:261–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13175CrossRefPubMed

Nissan J, Mardinger O, Calderon S, Romanos GE, Chaushu G (2011) Cancellous bone block allografts for the augmentation of the anterior atrophic maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 13:104–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00193.xCrossRefPubMed

Stumbras A, Galindo-Moreno P, Januzis G, Juodzbalys G (2021) Three-dimensional analysis of dimensional changes after alveolar ridge preservation with bone substitutes or plasma rich in growth factors: Randomized and controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 23:96–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12950CrossRefPubMed

10.

Elnayef B, Porta C, Del Suárez-López F, Mordini L, Gargallo-Albiol J, Hernández-Alfaro F (2018) The fate of lateral Ridge Augmentation: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33:622–635. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6290CrossRefPubMed

11.

Gultekin BA, Bedeloglu E, Kose TE, Mijiritsky E (2016) Comparison of bone resorption rates after Intraoral Block Bone and guided bone regeneration augmentation for the Reconstruction of horizontally deficient Maxillary Alveolar ridges. Biomed Res Int 2016:4987437. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4987437CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Bartols A, Kasprzyk S, Walther W, Korsch M (2018) Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous block grafts fixed at a distance versus resorbable Poly-D-L-Lactide foil fixed at a distance: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 29:843–854. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13303CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kuchler U, von Arx T (2014) Horizontal ridge augmentation in conjunction with or prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29:14–24. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.1CrossRefPubMed

14.

Moy PK, Aghaloo T (2019) Risk factors in bone augmentation procedures. Periodontol 2000 81:76–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12285

15.

Cosyn J, Eghbali A, Hanselaer L, De Rouck T, Wyn I, Sabzevar MM, Cleymaet R, De Bruyn H (2013) Four modalities of single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: a clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15:517–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00417.xCrossRefPubMed

16.

Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B (2018) Narrow-diameter implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 29:21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13272CrossRefPubMed

17.

Chen K, Li Z, Liu X, Liu Q, Chen Z, Sun Y, Chen Z, Huang B (2021) Immediate Implant Placement with Buccal Bone Augmentation in the Anterior Maxilla with Thin Buccal plate: a one-year Follow-Up Case Series. J Prosthodont 30:473–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13350CrossRefPubMed

18.

Klein MO, Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B (2014) Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29 Suppl:43–54. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.3CrossRefPubMed

19.

Park JH, Shin SW, Lee JY (2023) Narrow-diameter versus regular-diameter dental implants for mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont 32:669–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13726CrossRefPubMed

20.

Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A (2009) Immediate Versus one-stage restoration of small-diameter implants for a single missing Maxillary lateral incisor: a 3-Year randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol 80:1393–1398. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090153CrossRefPubMed

21.

Zhang XM, Liu BL, Qian SJ, Shi JY, Zhang X, Lai HC (2022) Clinical evaluation of narrow-diameter implants versus standard-diameter implants with lateral bone augmentation in posterior jaws: three-year results of a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 33:1245–1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14006CrossRefPubMed

22.

Schiegnitz E, Kämmerer PW, Hellwich P, König J, Sagheb K, Al-Nawas B (2021) Treatment concepts of horizontally deficient ridges-A retrospective study comparing narrow-diameter implants in pristine bone with standard-diameter implants in augmented bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 32:1159–1167. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13807CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cruz RS, Lemos CAA, de Batista VES, Yogui FC, Oliveira HFF, Verri FR (2021) Narrow-diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:674–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.10.001CrossRefPubMed

24.

Alrabiah M (2019) Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Investig Clin Dent 10:e12367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12367CrossRefPubMed

25.

(2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135%m19622511

26.

Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2000) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses

27.

Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA (2019) Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. Cochrane Handb Syst Reviews Interventions :205–228

28.

Andersen E, Saxegaard E, Knutsen BM, Haanaes HR (2001) 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 16:217–224PubMed

29.

Ioannidis A, Gallucci GO, Jung RE, Borzangy S, Hämmerle CH, Benic GI (2015) Titanium-Zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 42:1060–1070. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12468CrossRefPubMed

30.

Momberger N, Mukaddam K, Zitzmann NU, Bornstein MA, Filippi A, Kühl S (2022) Esthetic and functional outcomes of narrow-diameter implants compared in a cohort study to standard diameter implants in the anterior zone of the maxilla. Quintessence Int 53:502–509. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b2887673CrossRefPubMed

31.

Orenstein IH, Petrazzuolo V, Morris HF, Ochi S (2000) Variables affecting survival of single-tooth hydroxyapatite-coated implants in anterior maxillae at 3 years. Ann Periodontol 5:68–78. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.68CrossRefPubMed

32.

Benic GI, Gallucci GO, Mokti M, Hämmerle CH, Weber HP, Jung RE (2013) Titanium-Zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 40:1052–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12156CrossRefPubMed

33.

Checchi V, Gasparro R, Pistilli R, Canullo L, Felice P (2019) Clinical classification of Bone Augmentation Procedure failures in the Atrophic Anterior Maxillae: esthetic consequences and Treatment options. Biomed Res Int 2019:4386709. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4386709CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M (2005) Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 25:113–119

35.

Turkyilmaz I, Tözüm TF, Tumer C (2007) Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil 34:267–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.xCrossRefPubMed

36.

Tinsley D, Watson CJ, Ogden AR (1999) A survey of U.K. centres on implant failures. J Oral Rehabil 26:14–18. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00355.xCrossRefPubMed

37.

Wang S-H, Shen Y-W, Fuh L-J, Peng S-L, Tsai M-T, Huang H-L, Hsu J-T (2020) Relationship between cortical bone thickness and cancellous bone density at Dental Implant sites in the Jawbone. Diagnostics 10:710CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Pal US, Dhiman NK, Singh G, Singh RK, Mohammad S, Malkunje LR (2011) Evaluation of implants placed immediately or delayed into extraction sites. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2:54–62. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.85855CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Ganji K, Rostamzadeh M, Talimkhani I, Moradi Y (2023) The comparison of survival rates between narrow diameter implants and Standard Diameter Implants: an updated Meta-analysis. Med J Islam Repub Iran 37:5. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.37.5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Telles LH, Portella FF, Rivaldo EG (2019) Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 14:e0225046. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225046CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Badaró MM, Herdt B, Bezerra AP, Schimmel M, Vega Gonçalves TMS (2022) Narrow-diameter implants for partial fixed and removable prostheses: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Prosthodont 35:738–751. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7782CrossRefPubMed

42.

Alresayes S, Mokeem SA, Alhenaki AM, Vohra F, Abduljabbar T (2021) Evaluation of the implant diameter on the initial-stability of narrow- and standard-diameter implants placed in simulated Type-I and Type-IV bone-blocks. Pak J Med Sci 37:812–815. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.3.3943CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Mangano F, Shibli JA, Sammons RL, Veronesi G, Piattelli A, Mangano C (2014) Clinical outcome of narrow-diameter (3.3-mm) locking-taper implants: a prospective study with 1 to 10 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29:448–455. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3327CrossRefPubMed

44.

Fransson C, Wennström J, Berglundh T (2008) Clinical characteristics at implants with a history of progressive bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:142–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01448.xCrossRefPubMed

45.

Belser UC, Buser D, Hess D, Schmid B, Bernard JP, Lang NP (1998) Aesthetic implant restorations in partially edentulous patients–a critical appraisal. Periodontol 2000 17:132–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00131.x

46.

Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, Steigmann M, Rebaudi A, Palti A, Pikos MA, Schwartz-Arad D, Choukroun J, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Marenzi G, Valavanis DK (2008) Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 17:5–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059

47.

Cosyn J, De Rouck T (2009) Aesthetic outcome of single-tooth implant restorations following early implant placement and guided bone regeneration: crown and soft tissue dimensions compared with contralateral teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:1063–1069. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01746.xCrossRefPubMed

48.

Qian J, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T (2012) Reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 14:792–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12014CrossRefPubMed

49.

Ozgur GO, Kazancioglu HO, Demirtas N, Deger S, Ak G (2016) Risk factors Associated with Implant marginal bone loss: a retrospective 6-Year Follow-Up study. Implant Dent 25:122–127. https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0000000000000366CrossRefPubMed

50.

Allum SR, Tomlinson RA, Joshi R (2008) The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:553–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01395.xCrossRefPubMed

51.

Davarpanah M, Martinez H, Tecucianu JF, Celletti R, Lazzara R (2000) Small-diameter implants: indications and contraindications. J Esthet Dent 12:186–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2000.tb00221.xCrossRefPubMed

52.

Sanz M, Klinge B, Alcoforado G, Bienz SP, Cosyn J, De Bruyn H, Derks J, Figuero E, Gurzawska K, Heitz-Mayfield L, Jung RE, Ornekul T, Sagado A (2018) Biological aspects: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 5(th) EAO Consensus Conference 2018. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(Suppl 18):152–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13274CrossRefPubMed

53.

Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco J, Camargo PM, Chen S, Cochran D, Derks J, Figuero E, Hämmerle CHF, Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Huynh-Ba G, Iacono V, Koo K-T, Lambert F, McCauley L, Quirynen M, Renvert S, Salvi GE, Schwarz F, Tarnow D, Tomasi C, Wang H-L, Zitzmann N (2018) Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World workshop on the classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Periodontol 89:S313–S318. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.17-0739CrossRefPubMed

54.

Alghamdi O, Alrabiah M, Al-Hamoudi N, AlKindi M, Vohra F, Abduljabbar T (2020) Peri-implant soft tissue status and crestal bone loss around immediately-loaded narrow-diameter implants placed in cigarette-smokers: 6-year follow-up results. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 22:220–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12893CrossRefPubMed

55.

Rodriguez AM, Rosenstiel SF (2012) Esthetic considerations related to bone and soft tissue maintenance and development around dental implants: report of the Committee on Research in fixed prosthodontics of the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 108:259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(12)60174-7CrossRefPubMed

56.

Petropoulou A, Pappa E, Pelekanos S (2013) Esthetic considerations when replacing missing maxillary incisors with implants: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 109:140–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(13)00056-5CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Clinical outcomes of narrow- and regular-diameter implants with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von: Yan Zhang
Guochen Wen
Wei Dong
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2024
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 3/2024
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05588-4

Update Zahnmedizin

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Clinical outcomes of narrow- and regular-diameter implants with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Update Zahnmedizin

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2024

Biomechanical analysis of alveolar bones with compromised quality supporting a 4-unit implant bridge; a possible association with implant-related sequestration (IRS)

Biological response to endodontic treatment in one versus two-visit: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies

Oral manifestations in women using hormonal contraceptive methods: a systematic review

Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive versus silk sutures for mandibular third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of nano silver fluoride, self-assembling peptide and sodium fluoride varnish on salivary cariogenic bacteria: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Correction to: Antibacterial and clinical efectiveness of a mouthwash with a novel active system of amine + zinc lactate + fuoride: a randomized controlled trial

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Update Zahnmedizin