Mini-dental implants for definitive prosthesis retention - A synopsis of the current evidence

2Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: This narrative review provides an evidence-based overview of the comparison between mini-dental implants (MDI) and conventional dental implants for definitive prosthesis retention. In addition, recommendations are made on whether the use of reduced diameter dental implants is more appropriate. Method: A literature review was conducted via electronic search addressing the following topics: (1) osseointegration, (2) peri-implant soft tissue characteristics, (3) biomechanics, (4) implant survival and (5) implant success. Conclusion: The procedure for dental implant prosthetic rehabilitation should preferentially include conventional dental implants (i.e. [Formula: see text][Formula: see text]mm fixture diameter). Small (3-3.25[Formula: see text]mm) and narrow (3.3-3.5[Formula: see text]mm) dental implants should primarily be used in non-load-bearing regions. MDI ([Formula: see text][Formula: see text]mm) should be considered to retain definitive prosthesis, only for reasons of anatomy or patient-centred preferences and as a last resort. If MDI are to be used, patients should be made aware of the lack of long-term, high-quality evidence as a part of the informed consent process and that most of the prospective data available pertain to MDI retaining complete dentures.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wang, B., Ho, K. S., Neo, T. K., & Cheng, A. C. (2019, December 1). Mini-dental implants for definitive prosthesis retention - A synopsis of the current evidence. Singapore Dental Journal. NLM (Medline). https://doi.org/10.1142/S2214607519300015

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free