Abstract
Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to test whether wide diameter (6 mm) implants perform differently from standard diameter (4 mm) implants in terms of marginal bone level and survival rate. Materials and Methods: Our sample comprised 72 patients who underwent surgery; a total of 80 implants were placed in the maxillary or mandibular molar region. Patients were divided into two groups according to the diameter of the implant, and were followed up for six years after the final setting of the prosthetics. In the test group, 40 implants with 6-mm diameter were inserted; in the control group, 40 standard diameter implants were inserted. Using panoramic radiographs, we investigated mesial and distal marginal bone levels around the implant fixtures. Results: After the first implant surgery, three implants, including one wide diameter and two standard diameter implants, failed due to lack of osseointegration. We did not note any fixture fracture during the six-year follow-up. After loading, we observed a six-year survival rate of 97.29% with no statistically significant difference from standard diameter implants, with a survival rate of 94.87%. Conclusions: This study shows that 6-mm diameter implants may be considered in the presence of adequate alveolar ridge width in the posterior maxillary and mandibular regions.
Highlights
After tooth loss, dental implant placement is one method of tooth restoration
Three implants in the wide diameter group and one in the standard diameter group were not available at six-year follow-up, so their data was not used for survival rate analysis
The survival rate in our study was better than the 76.3% survival rate very high
Summary
Dental implant placement is one method of tooth restoration. SinceBrånemark established the concept of osseointegration, surgeons have been using a variety of implant types and sizes depending on the shape of the alveolar bone [1]. Surgeons have used implants that are wider than standard implants to improve initial implant fixation in patients with low alveolar bone density [3]. Implants with diameters greater than 6 mm were used primarily for the re-implantation of failed standard-diameter implants or for immediate placement after tooth extraction to obtain adequate initial fixation [5,6,7]. The aim of our study was to test whether wide diameter (6 mm) implants perform differently from standard diameter (4 mm) implants in terms of marginal bone level and survival rate. Conclusions: This study shows that 6-mm diameter implants may be considered in the presence of adequate alveolar ridge width in the posterior maxillary and mandibular regions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
