View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Survival Rates of Mini Dental Implants are Comparable to Standard Sized Implants for Prosthesis Support
Clinical Question Is the 5 year survival rate of mini dental implants comparable to standard sized root form implants when used in a dental implant supported prosthesis?
Clinical Bottom Line The 5 year survival rate of mini dental implants is comparable to standard sized implants when used for a dental implant supported prosthesis.
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) 16584409Romeo/2006188 patients receiving mini or standard sized implants.Comparative Cohort Study
Key results122 mini implants were placed in 68 patients to support 45 fixed prostheses and 23 single tooth prostheses. Additionally, 208 standard sized implants were placed in 120 patients to support 70 fixed prostheses and 50 single tooth prostheses. Over a 7-year period, the cumulative survival rate for narrow implants was 98% in the maxilla and 97% in the mandible. For standard sized implants the cumulative survival was 97% in the maxilla and 98% in the mandible. Cumulative survival rate of mini vs. standard sized implants was not statistically significant (P>.05).
#2) 23029781Shatkin/20121260 patients receiving 5640 MDI’s.Retrospective Cohort Study
Key results5640 MDI’s were placed into 1260 patients over the course of 12 years, mean follow-up was 3.5 years. Implants were placed in both the mandible & maxilla and supported both fixed and removable prostheses with an overall survival rate of 92.1%. Of those implants placed in the maxilla and mandible and supporting fixed prostheses- survival rates were 93.1% in the mandible and 91.3% in the maxilla. Mean time to failure for any implant was 14.4 months.
Evidence Search ((("Dental Implants"[Mesh]) AND "Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported"[Mesh:NoExp]) AND "Dental Prosthesis
Comments on
The Evidence
Both studies involved a significant number of patients and implants. Both groups in the Romeo article were similar at the outset of the study, had >80% completion and adequate compliance. A determination needs to be made about how to properly define a mini dental implant. The Shatkin article uses mini implants with <3mm diameter, the Romeo article uses narrow implants with <3.3mm diameter. In the Shatkin article it is disclosed that the author is the owner/founder of F.I.R.S.T. a dental implant company.
Applicability Both articles provide strong evidence for the use of mini dental implants to support both removable and fixed prostheses.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Prosthodontics) (Restorative Dentistry) (Dental Hygiene)
Keywords Narrow implant, mini dental implant, partial edentulism, fixed prosthesis, standard-diameter implants, implant-supported dental prosthesis
ID# 2641
Date of submission: 03/06/2014spacer
E-mail hunsakert@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Tanner Hunsaker
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Norma Olvera, DDS, MS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail OlveraN@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