Anitua Eduardo, Alcaine Ander, Alkhraisat Mohammad Hamdan
University Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Oral Implantology-UIRMI (UPV/EHU-Fundación Eduardo Anitua), 01007 Vitoria, Spain.
BTI Biotechnology Institute, 01007 Vitoria, Spain.
Dent J (Basel). 2025 Sep 12;13(9):420. doi: 10.3390/dj13090420.
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. 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. 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; = 0.119). None of the prostheses failed, and all remained free of technical complications throughout the study. Within the limitations of this study, narrow-diameter implants demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes to standard-diameter implants when supporting the same prostheses.
比较支持相同多颗固定修复体并模拟真实临床场景的窄径(<3.75 mm)种植体和标准直径(≥3.75 mm)种植体的存留情况。这是一项对照临床试验,试验组(直径<3.75 mm)和对照组(直径≥3.75 mm)种植体均支持相同的修复体。主要变量是种植体存留情况,次要变量包括人口统计学、手术和修复相关变量。进行统计分析以比较研究组之间的这些变量。共有42例患者参与本研究,年龄范围为39至92岁。随访期为36个月。与较宽直径种植体相比,窄直径种植体(NDI)主要植入前磨牙区,且在I型和II型骨中更为常见。研究期间未记录到种植体失败病例。在12个月随访时,研究组之间的边缘骨水平重塑显示出统计学上的显著差异。然而,随访3年后这些差异不再显著(试验组: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)。所有修复体均未失败,且在整个研究过程中均未出现技术并发症。在本研究的局限性范围内,窄直径种植体在支持相同修复体时显示出与标准直径种植体相当的临床结果。