OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the efficacy of mini dental implants (MDIs) and standard-diameter implants (SDIs) in retaining mandibular overdentures (MO).
METHODS: The focused question was \"Is there a difference in the mechanical stability between MDIs and SDIs in retaining MO?\" Indexed databases were searched up to and including November 2023 using different keywords. Boolean operators were used during the search. The literature was searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The PICO characteristics were: patients (P) = individuals with complete mandibular dentures requiring dental implants; Intervention (I) = placement of MDIs under mandibular dentures; Control (C) = placement of SDIs under mandibular dentures; Outcome (O) = comparison of stability between MDIs and SDIs in supporting mandibular dentures. Only RCTs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool.
RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. The numbers of participants ranged between 45 and 120 edentulous individuals wearing complete mandibular dentures. The mean age of patients ranged between 59.5 ± 8.5 and 68.3 ± 8.5 years. The number of MDIs and SDIs ranged between 22 and 152 and 10 and 80 implants, respectively. The follow-up duration ranged between one week and 12 months. Three RCTs reported an improvement in the quality of life (QoL) of all patients after stabilisation of mandibular dentures using MDIs or SDIs. In one RCT, peri-implant soft tissue profiles were comparable between MDIs and SDIs at the 1-year follow-up. The implant survival rate was reported in two RCTs, which were from 89% to 98% and 99% to 100% for MDIs and SDIs, respectively. All RCTs had a low RoB.
CONCLUSIONS: Mini dental implants represent a viable alternative to traditional standard-diameter implants when seeking optimal retention for mandibular overdentures.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants with different variables associated over an observational period of at least 20 years.
METHODS: Patients with at least one implant placed prior to 2001 were recalled and visited. Data on implant macro-design, prosthetic aspects, site distribution, and patient-related factors were collected. MBL was evaluated on intraoral X-rays and peri-implant soft tissue parameters were recorded. The patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire to evaluate their satisfaction with the treatment received. Descriptive statistics indicators were estimated. Analysis of variance and analysis of covariance models were used to investigate any differences in the MBL and peri-implant probing depth (PPD) among the variables. A chi-square analysis was performed to investigate any association between different types of prosthetic implant-supported rehabilitations and survival/success outcomes.
RESULTS: Forty-one (41) patients and 174 implants were included with a mean observational period of 23.3 ± 2.8 years. The implant survival and success rates were 96.5% and 83.3% respectively, while 3.5% of early failures were detected. The lowest success rates were observed for implants supporting fixed full-arch rehabilitations (71.05%) and overdenture rehabilitations (86.11%). A mean MBL of 1.81 ± 0.71 mm and a mean PPD of 3.38 ± 1.62 mm were recorded. The interaction between the collected data with MBL and PPD did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the variables (p > 0.05). A statistically significant difference was recorded when analyzing the association between the different types of prosthetic implant-supported rehabilitations and success rates (p = 0.014), with fixed and removable full-arch rehabilitations presenting with lower success rates. Answers to the questionnaire showed a generally high level of satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this retrospective study and based on the results, an implant survival rate higher than 96% was observed after a mean observational period of 23.3 ± 2.8 years. Both the implant survival rate and MBL seemed stable after a mean observational period of 23.3 ± 2.8 years. Implants supporting fixed and removable full-arch rehabilitations seemed to present lower success rates over time. Implant rehabilitation seemed to provide patients with optimal long-term outcomes in terms of functional and psychological aspects.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of a two-piece implant system with a tube-in-tube internal connection after up to 15 years of clinical use.
METHODS: A retrospective follow-up examination of patients treated with internal tube-in-tube implants between 2003 and 2006 was conducted. The implant survival rates, peri-implant conditions (marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, plaque index, probing depth), and technical complications were determined.
RESULTS: In total, 312 dental implants were placed in 152 patients. Of the original 152 patients enrolled, 245 implants in 112 patients were available for a follow-up evaluation after 11 to 15 years (mean observation time, 12.9 ± 1.1 years). The overall implant survival rate was 93.9%. Outcomes for MBL (1.49 ± 1.23 mm), PI (24.3 ± 22.2%), BOP (18.3 ± 28.7%), and PD (2.74 ± 1.21 mm) were observed. Selected parameters (time after implant surgery, smoking habits, bone augmentation (GBR)) showed an influence on MBL and PD.
CONCLUSIONS: The internal tube-in-tube implant system showed favorable long-term results. The correlation of MBL and PD with the patient-specific factor smoking habit is in accordance with other studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Camlog Root-Line implants with a tube-in-tube implant-abutment connection and a 1.6-mm polished neck configuration have demonstrated favorable long-term outcomes in daily clinical practice. However, it is important to note that these implants are no longer available on the market.

OBJECTIVE: Alveolar ridge split (ARS) is ridge augmentation to mitigate ridge width loss that typically follows tooth extraction. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of ARS on alveolar ridge horizontal dimensional changes and the survival rates of implants placed into the same sites.
METHODS: An electronic and manual search was conducted for English articles published up to January 1, 2021. The PICO (problem, intervention, comparison, outcome) model for quantitative studies was established to address the following two focused questions: (1) What are the effects of the ARS technique on increasing alveolar width and implant survival?; and (2) what are the factors that influence the efficacy of the ARS technique? The outcome measures in this systematic review and meta-analysis were mean alveolar ridge gain-horizontal (buccolingual) in millimeters from baseline (initial presentation) to final assessment (minimum of 12 weeks after ARS), implant survival rate, and patient-reported complication rate. The risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I assessment tool for non-randomized interventional studies. Weighted means were calculated, and pooled effects and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were depicted on forest plots. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Rosenthal Statistics. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the primary outcome.
RESULTS: Overall, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. The mean alveolar ridge gain for ARS was 3.06 mm (95% CI: 3.01 to 3.12 mm). A mean gain of 2.99 mm (95% CI: 2.93 to 3.04 mm) was found after sensitivity analysis, excluding one article with a high risk of bias. There were no significant differences in ridge width in the group with bone graft (mean difference [95% CI] of 2.97 mm [2.91 to 3.03 mm]) and in the group without bone graft (mean difference [95% CI] of 3.06 mm [2.92 to 3.20 mm]). The ARS technique demonstrated a 98.17% implant survival rate in 4,446 implants, 4,103 of which were placed at the time of ARS with a 97.72% implant survival rate, and 343 placed in a delayed approach with a 99.14% implant survival rate. The risk of bias was low in 14.2%, low to moderate in 68.5%, moderate in 11.4%, and severe/moderate in 5.7% of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS: ARS shows a high implant survival rate in narrow alveolar ridges, adequate horizontal alveolar ridge dimensional gain regardless of adding grafting material, and minimal patient-reported complications.

To evaluate the effects of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique on gained horizontal width of the alveolar ridge and implant survival rate.
Electronic searching was performed in six electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and SIGLE) from January 1, 2010, to November 1, 2023. Two authors performed study selection, data extraction, and study qualities (ROBINS-I and RoB 2.0) independently. Meta-analysis was performed by Comprehensive meta-analysis 3.0.
24 included studies were observational, and 1 study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT). 14 studies investigated the gained width of the horizontal alveolar ridge, and 17 examined the implants\' survival rate. For assessment of risk of bias, nine studies were high risk of bias and 16 studies were moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the pooled gained alveolar ridge width was 3.348 mm (95%CI: 4.163 mm, 2.533 mm), and the implant survival rate was 98.1% (95%CI: 98.9%, 96.9%). Seven studies showed seven different complications including exposure, infection, bad split, dehiscence, fracture, paresthesia and soft tissue retraction.
Recent ARS technique seems to be an effective method of bone augmentation with enough gained width and a high implant survival rate. Further long-term and RCTs research remains needed to enhance the study quality.
The ARS technique could generate sufficient bone volume, and implants had a high-level survival rate. Therefore, ARS has been proposed to be a reliable horizontal bone augmentation technique that creates good conditions for the implantation of narrow alveolar crests.

Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) has shown the ability to significantly reduce inflammation and marginal bone loss (MBL) at the 1-year follow-up but limited data exist regarding its long-term efficacy in peri-implant stability. The objective was to compare the long-term effects (5 years of follow-up) of a placebo gel (16 patients in Group A) or a 0.20% CHX gel (15 patients in Group B) used at each previous surgical and prosthetic stage. Control visits were conducted in 2022, investigating the long-term effects by biological, radiological, and clinical evaluation. The data were statistically analyzed. The research achieved a 96.7% implant success rate over five years, but 41.9% of patients did not attend annual oral hygiene check-ups. The average MBL was 1.04 ± 0.39 mm, with no significant differences between the two groups. Notably, patients who attended regular periodontal check-ups experienced significantly less MBL than those who did not (p < 0.05). At five years, direct effects of CHX were absent, with both groups showing moderate bone loss. However, the results suggest that early disinfection could enhance both short- and long-term outcomes. In fact, patients with initial minor MBL due to use of CHX, preserve this advantage also after 5 years of follow-up. Additionally, the data underscore the importance of annual check-ups in early detection and management of biological complications.

UNASSIGNED: This study evaluated the success and survival rate of sandblasted and acid-etched dental implants according to the patient\'s bone quality.
UNASSIGNED: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted in five clinical centers between 2016 and March 2019. A total of 407 implants (KONTACTTM S, Biotech Dental, France) placed in 229 patients (61.5±12.9 years old) were included. Bone quality, classified as types D1 to D4 (Misch classification), maximal insertion torque, and bone loss were measured. The implant survival rate was evaluated after one year for the overall cohort and for each bone quality. The overall survival rate after four years was also estimated with a Kaplan-Meier analysis.
UNASSIGNED: After one year (12.8±9.6 months), eight implants were lost out of 407, representing an overall survival rate of 98%. It ranged from 100% for D1 to 89.7% for D4 (n=39), with significantly higher survival rates for D2 (n=93) and D3 (n=165) (98.9% and 98.2%, respectively) compared to D4. According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, an overall survival rate of 96.5% was estimated after four years. An average maximal insertion torque of 45±12.6 N.cm and bone loss of 0.2±1.2 mm were measured.
UNASSIGNED: The high overall survival rate (98%), the average maximal insertion torque (45 N.cm), and the low marginal bone loss indicated good clinical results with acid-etched implants. Despite the relatively high survival rate for each bone quality, the significantly lower results in the D4 group highlight the expected benefits of bone quality-based implants and surgical protocols.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to compare treatment outcomes in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between narrow-diameter implants and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) for mandibular implant overdentures (MIOs).
METHODS: This study was based on the methodology adapted as per Cochrane. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for pertinent studies published by July 22, 2022. Outcome parameters included in this meta-analysis were implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, visual analogue scale score for patient satisfaction, and value of oral health impact profile.
RESULTS: A total of 782 non-duplicate articles and 83 clinical study registrations were identified from database and hand searches, of which 26 were eligible for full-text searches. Finally, 12 publications reporting on 8 independent studies were included in this review. In the meta-analysis, implant survival rate and marginal bone loss did not significantly differ between narrow-diameter implants and RDIs. Regarding RDIs, narrow-diameter implants were associated with significantly better outcomes in general patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life than RDIs for mandibular overdentures.
CONCLUSIONS: Narrow-diameter implants have competitive treatment outcomes compared to RDIs in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and PROMs. [Correction added on July 21, 2023, after first online publication: The abbreviation RDIs was changed to PROMs in the preceding sentence.] Thus, narrow-diameter implants might be an alternative treatment option for MIOs in situations with limited alveolar bone volume.

Clinical effect of the high insertion torque on dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lemos CA, Verri FR, de Oliveira Neto OB, Cruz RS, Gomes JML, da Silva Casado BG, Pellizzer EP. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 126(4): 490-496.
Not reported.
Systematic review with meta-analysis (SR).

As maxillofacial surgical techniques have advanced, vascularized bone free flap transplantation has become the standard treatment for repairing maxillofacial defects. In this meta-analysis, we summarize the survival rates of implants after VBFF surgery for maxillary and mandibular reconstructions and investigate the factors affecting patient outcomes.
The PubMed, Embase, and Wanfang databases were searched up to May 31, 2022. The results of the treatment effect are presented as the risk ratio or odds ratio, using 95% confidence intervals. Statistical significance was calculated at α = 0.05 (two-tailed z tests).
35 studies were included in our analysis. The results revealed a 3-year and 5-year implant survival rate of 95.2% and 85.4% in VBFFs, respectively. The location of jaw defects (maxilla or mandible) or timing of implantation was not found to have a statistically significant influence on the survival rate. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the failure of implants placed in irradiated bone tissue.
Statistically significant differences were not found in the implant survival rate between simultaneous and delayed implantation, or between maxillary and mandibular defects. However, dental implants placed in irradiated flaps tended to have a lower survival rate than those surgically placed in non-irradiated flaps.