Narrow-diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorCruz, R. S. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorLemos, C. A.A.
dc.contributor.authorde Batista, V. E.S.
dc.contributor.authorYogui, F. C. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorOliveira, H. F.F. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorVerri, F. R. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionGovernador Valadares
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of the West of São Paulo (UNOESTE)
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-25T10:45:02Z
dc.date.available2021-06-25T10:45:02Z
dc.date.issued2021-05-01
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies comparing implant survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complication rates between narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) used for oral rehabilitation in the anterior region. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until May 2020. A total of 843 implants (484 NDIs and 359 RDIs) were included. No significant difference in implant survival rate (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.01 to 0.03; P = 0.34), MBL (standardised mean difference −0.51 mm, 95% CI −1.29 to 0.26 mm; P = 0.19), mechanical complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.04; P = 0.40), or biological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.11; P = 0.85) was found between the implant groups. Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that NDIs are an effective alternative to RDIs due to similar survival rates, MBL, and mechanical and biological complication rates. However, future studies are highly encouraged due to the small number of interventional studies on this topic.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Campus of Aracatuba
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dentistry Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF) Campus Governador Valadares Governador Valadares
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Prosthodontics Presidente Prudente Dental School University of the West of São Paulo (UNOESTE)
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Campus of Aracatuba
dc.format.extent674-682
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.10.001
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 50, n. 5, p. 674-682, 2021.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijom.2020.10.001
dc.identifier.issn1399-0020
dc.identifier.issn0901-5027
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85096405975
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/206859
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectDental implants
dc.subjectMarginal bone loss
dc.subjectMeta-analysis
dc.subjectNarrow diameter
dc.titleNarrow-diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysisen
dc.typeArtigo

Arquivos