Comparison of Narrow (<3.75 mm) and Standard (≥3.75 mm) Diameter Implants Supporting the Same Multiple Fixed Prostheses and Mirroring Real-World Clinical Scenarios: Non-Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 3.1 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Eduardo Anitua, Ander Alcaine, Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat
{"title":"Comparison of Narrow (<3.75 mm) and Standard (≥3.75 mm) Diameter Implants Supporting the Same Multiple Fixed Prostheses and Mirroring Real-World Clinical Scenarios: Non-Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Eduardo Anitua, Ander Alcaine, Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat","doi":"10.3390/dj13090420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To compare the survival of narrow (<3.75 mm) implants and standard diameter (≥3.75 mm) implants supporting the same multiple fixed prostheses and mirroring real-world clinical scenarios. <b>Methods:</b> This is a controlled clinical trial where both test (diameter < 3.75 mm) and control (diameter ≥ 3.75 mm) implants supported the same prosthesis. The principal variable was implant survival and the secondary variables included demographic, surgical and prosthetic variables. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare these variables between the study groups. <b>Results:</b> A total of 42 patients participated in this study, with an age range of 39 to 92 years. The follow-up period was 36 months. Narrow diameter implants (NDIs) were predominantly placed in the premolar region and more frequently in bone types I and II compared to wider diameter implants. No implant failures were recorded during the study period. Marginal bone level remodeling showed statistically significant differences between the study groups at 12-month follow-up. However, these differences were no longer significant after 3 years of follow-up (Test: median -0.2 mm, range -1.5 to 0.8 mm; Control: median 0.0 mm, range -1.3 to 0.8 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.119). None of the prostheses failed, and all remained free of technical complications throughout the study. <b>Conclusions:</b> Within the limitations of this study, narrow-diameter implants demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes to standard-diameter implants when supporting the same prostheses.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"13 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12468807/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13090420","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the survival of narrow (<3.75 mm) implants and standard diameter (≥3.75 mm) implants supporting the same multiple fixed prostheses and mirroring real-world clinical scenarios. Methods: This is a controlled clinical trial where both test (diameter < 3.75 mm) and control (diameter ≥ 3.75 mm) implants supported the same prosthesis. The principal variable was implant survival and the secondary variables included demographic, surgical and prosthetic variables. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare these variables between the study groups. Results: A total of 42 patients participated in this study, with an age range of 39 to 92 years. The follow-up period was 36 months. Narrow diameter implants (NDIs) were predominantly placed in the premolar region and more frequently in bone types I and II compared to wider diameter implants. No implant failures were recorded during the study period. Marginal bone level remodeling showed statistically significant differences between the study groups at 12-month follow-up. However, these differences were no longer significant after 3 years of follow-up (Test: median -0.2 mm, range -1.5 to 0.8 mm; Control: median 0.0 mm, range -1.3 to 0.8 mm; p = 0.119). None of the prostheses failed, and all remained free of technical complications throughout the study. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, narrow-diameter implants demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes to standard-diameter implants when supporting the same prostheses.

窄直径(<3.75 mm)和标准直径(≥3.75 mm)种植体支持相同多个固定假体并反映真实世界临床情况的比较:非随机临床试验
目的:比较窄(直径< 3.75 mm)和对照(直径≥3.75 mm)种植体支持同一种植体的临床对照试验。主要变量是种植体存活,次要变量包括人口统计学、手术和假体变量。对这些变量在研究组之间进行了统计分析比较。结果:本研究共纳入42例患者,年龄39 ~ 92岁。随访36个月。窄径种植体(ndi)主要放置在前磨牙区,与宽径种植体相比,在I型和II型骨中更常见。研究期间无种植体失败记录。在12个月的随访中,两组间边缘骨水平重塑的差异有统计学意义。然而,在3年的随访后,这些差异不再显著(测试:中位数-0.2 mm,范围-1.5至0.8 mm;对照组:中位数0.0 mm,范围-1.3至0.8 mm; p = 0.119)。没有一个假体失败,并且在整个研究过程中所有假体都没有出现技术并发症。结论:在本研究的局限性内,当支持相同的假体时,窄直径种植体与标准直径种植体表现出相当的临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信