Title |
Mini Dental Implants: Approved for Long-Term Fixed and Removable Prostheses |
Clinical Question |
For complete/partial edentulous patients that will receive an implant-supported prosthesis, is the longevity of mini dental implants comparable to conventional dental implants over a 5-year period? |
Clinical Bottom Line |
With a somewhat greater implant-to-tooth ratio for fixed restorations versus removable prostheses over a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, mini dental implants have shown comparable longevity to conventional dental implants. (See Comments on the CAT below) |
Best Evidence |
|
PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
17319180 | Shatkin/2007 | 531 complete/partial edentulous patients | Retrospective Analysis: Cohort Study | Key results | Over a 5-year period, 2514 MDI’s (mini dental implants) were placed in 531 complete/partial edentulous patients. An overall implant survival of 94.2% was observed with a mean follow-up of 2.9 years (a rate comparable to conventional dental implants over the same period). There were 145 failures defined as implants with mobility, persistent subjective complaints, or infection with suppuration. Splinted implant mobility was assessed without removal of fixed prostheses. Implant survival improved with placement experience. | |
Evidence Search |
Mini dental implants Limit to: Systematic Review |
Comments on
The Evidence |
Patient inclusion for the study was broad, excluding only patients with severely atrophic bone or active intraoral infections. MDI’s were placed in near equal proportions in the maxilla and mandible, in males and females, and in fixed and removable prostheses. More MDI’s were placed in some applications than would be expected with conventional implants. Evaluation of individual implant survival in splinted prostheses by evaluating the prosthesis mobility may overstate implant success to some extent. No implant life table was provided. 20 implants fractured during placement and were not included in the survival analysis. The mean 2.9 years of follow-up is ample to assess initial integration, but relatively short for assessment of failures associated with chronic load. No treatment or analysis bias was in evidence, but the principal author/clinician disclosed financial interests in MDI use. |
Applicability |
This evidence provides a valuable insight into the potential use of MDI’s for complete/partial edentulous patients. |
Specialty |
(General Dentistry) (Oral Surgery) (Periodontics) (Prosthodontics) |
Keywords |
Mini dental implant; longevity; long-term; fixed prosthesis; removable prosthesis
|
ID# |
2235 |
Date of submission |
04/12/2012 |
E-mail |
nesloney@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
Author |
Chase Nesloney |
Co-author(s) |
|
Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
Faculty mentor |
Stephan J. Haney, DDS |
Faculty mentor e-mail |
haneys2@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?) |
None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
by Paul Hansen (Lincoln, Nebraska) on 06/26/2012 Nice CAT. The use of the mini implants can be beneficial to elderly patients who have limited resources and to keep the surgical insult to a minimum. | |