View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Success Rates For Both Narrow-Diameter Dental Implants And Standard-Width Implants are Comparable
Clinical Question In patients desiring dental implants, do narrow-diameter dental implants have as good a success rate as conventional standard-width implants?
Clinical Bottom Line For patients requiring dental implants, narrow-diameter implants are found to be comparable in success to standard-width conventional implants. The failure rate of narrow-diameter implants appears similar to that of conventional implants.
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 22313216Sohrabi/20122,762 edentate patients not otherwise describedSystematic Review
Key resultsSurvival rates reported for narrow-diameter implants are similar to those reported for standard-width implants with all studies reporting success rates of 89% or greater, and 31 of the 41 studies reporting success rates of 95% or greater.
#2) 18548923Morneburg/200867 edentulous patients with ridge resorption needing implant-supported stabilization of denturesCohort Study
Key resultsThe overall survival rate of the narrow-diameter (2.5 mm) implants was 95.5%.
Evidence Search "dental implant"[All Fields]) AND success[All Fields]
Comments on
The Evidence
The Sohrabi article provided a comprehensive review of 41 trials, comparing the survival rates of narrow-diameter implants and standard-width implants. No statistical analysis of findings was done in this review. These results must be considered relative to the potential for unique application and functional demands associated with the use of narrow-diameter implants, and also that this review include 3.5 mm diameter implants as narrow-diameter implants. The Morneburg article reported on the success rates of 67 patients using a total of 134 narrow-diameter implants supporting mandibular dentures. There was no comparison group with standard-diameter implants. Implants were evaluated for an average of 6 years (SD 2.7).
Applicability Together, these articles highlight both the potential narrow-diameter implants offer as a therapeutic option and also the limitations in the information available in the current literature. As more refined prospective comparison studies are completed, the potential and the application of narrow-diameter implants will become clear. Future considerations will need to include patient-centered outcomes reducing surgical interventions or extending the application of implant therapy for patients.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Oral Surgery) (Periodontics)
Keywords implant, narrow-diameter implant, small-diameter implant
ID# 2263
Date of submission: 04/13/2012spacer
E-mail chilmeran@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Sarah Chilmeran
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Thomas Oates, DMD, PhD
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail oates@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
post a comment
None available

Return to Found CATs list