Survival Rate Of Dental Implants Research Articles

Structural Characterization and Osseointegrative Properties of Pulsed Laser-Deposited Fluorinated Hydroxyapatite Films on Nano-Zirconia for Implant Applications.

Standard zirconia implants used in restoration still present problems related to inertness and long-term stability. Various physicochemical approaches have been used to modify the implant surfaces to improve early and late bone-to-implant integration; however, no ideal surface modification has been reported. This study used pulsed laser deposition to deposit a fluorinated hydroxyapatite (FHA) film on a zirconia implant to create a biologically active surface. The film prepared was uniform, dense, and crack-free, and exhibited granular surface droplets; it also presented excellent mechanical strength and favorable biological behavior. The FHA-coated implant was implanted on the femur of Sprague–Dawley rats, and various tests and analyses were performed. Results show that the in vitro initial cell activity on the FHA-coated samples was enhanced. In addition, higher alkaline phosphatase activity and cell mineralization were detected in cells cultured on the FHA-coated groups. Further, the newly formed bone volume of the FHA-coated group was higher than that of the bare micro-adjusted composite nano-zirconia (NANOZR) group. Therefore, the FHA film facilitated osseointegration and may improve the long-term survival rates of dental implants, and could become part of a new treatment technology for implant surfaces, promoting further optimization of NANOZR implant materials.

Latest Trends in Surface Modification for Dental Implantology: Innovative Developments and Analytical Applications.

An increase in the world population and its life expectancy, as well as the ongoing concern about our physical appearance, have elevated the relevance of dental implantology in recent decades. Engineering strategies to improve the survival rate of dental implants have been widely investigated, focusing on implant material composition, geometry (usually guided to reduce stiffness), and interface surrounding tissues. Although efforts to develop different implant surface modifications are being applied in commercial dental prostheses today, the inclusion of surface coatings has gained special interest, as they can be tailored to efficiently enhance osseointegration, as well as to reduce bacterial-related infection, minimizing peri-implantitis appearance and its associated risks. The use of biomaterials to replace teeth has highlighted the need for the development of reliable analytical methods to assess the therapeutic benefits of implants. This literature review considers the state-of-the-art strategies for surface modification or coating and analytical methodologies for increasing the survival rate for teeth restoration.

The Application of Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Evaluation of Clinical Studies.

The demand for synthetic graft materials in implant dentistry is rising. This systematic review aims to evaluate the survival rate of dental implants placed simultaneously with bone regeneration procedures using the material β-tricalcium phosphate, one of the most promising synthetic graft materials. The electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scielo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Five randomized clinical trials, one non-randomized controlled clinical trial and four observational studies without control group were include. Implant survival rate and other clinical, radiographic, and histological parameters did not differ from those of implants placed simultaneously with another type of graft material, or placed in blood clots or natural alveolar ridges. Based on the available literature, β-tricalcium phosphate seems to be a promising graft material in implant dentistry. Nevertheless, more randomized clinical trials, with long follow-up periods, preoperative and postoperative CBCT, and histological analysis, are necessary to assess its long-term behavior.

Survival of Dental Implants on Irradiated Jaws: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Dental implants play a significant role in functional rehabilitation of the oral cavity after debilitating jaw surgeries for oral cavity cancers followed by radiotherapy. The meta-analysis was done using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) guidelines published from January 1947 till August 2020. Twenty three articles consisting of 1246 participants with 4838 implants were included in our analysis. The mean age of the included participants was 51.4years. 2186 and 1685 implants were placed on irradiated and non-irradiated jaws and showed a success rate of 82.47% and 89.37% respectively. Correspondingly, publication bias of p value = 0.2129and p-value = 0.6525 was found by Egger's and Begg's test respectivelyfor pooled data of 16 studies. The implant success rate of 70.4% on maxillary bone and 94.5% were observed on mandibular bone. Timing of implant placement and its influence on survival rate have resulted in a 75.5% survival rate of dental implants when placed primarily in comparison with 87.7% on delayed placement. The waiting interval of 14months in delayed implant placement has shown better results. Presence of radiotherapy does not play a significant role in the success rate of dental implants in oral cavity cancers. However, delayed implant placement may have a better chance of survival. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12663-022-01686-6.

Dental implants in patients suffering from autoimmune diseases: A systematic critical review

PurposeThis systematic review aimed to evaluate complications and survival rates of dental implants placed in patients suffering from autoimmune diseases. Materials and methodsA systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review guidelines (PRISMA), using Google scholar and PubMed electronic databases with a stop date of September 2021. The eligibility criteria included all full text human studies in the English language literature reporting on patients with autoimmune diseases treated with dental implants. ResultsFifty-five studies reporting on nine distinct autoimmune diseases were analyzed: 17 on Sjögren's syndrome (SS), 11 on oral lichen planus (OLP), 8 on Type 1 diabetes, 6 on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 4 on systemic scleroderma (SSc), 3 on Crohn's disease (CD), 3 on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), 2 on mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMB) and 1 on pemphigus vulgaris (PV). Despite the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of most of the studies, results showed that dental implant survival rates were comparable to those reported in the general population. However, patients with secondary SS or erosive OLP were more susceptible to developing peri-mucositis and increased marginal bone loss. ConclusionThis review suggested that dental implants may be considered as a safe and viable therapeutic option in the management of edentulous patients suffering from autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, scrupulous maintenance of oral hygiene and long-term follow-up emerge as being the common determinants for uneventful dental implant treatment.

Surface Modifications of Dental Implant and its Clinical Performance: A Review

Objectives: This review paper aims to provide an overview of various commercially available dental implant surface modifications and treatments, as well as their reported clinical performances. This knowledge would be useful for the practicing clinician in understanding the healing mechanism associated with each type of implant and in selecting the right type of implant for a specific clinical condition. Methods: An electronic search of literatures was performed in PubMed and Scopus database dated from January 1990 until July 2021. The search keywords were dental implant, surface modification, surface treatment, survival rate and/ or clinical performance as MeSH term. Only relevant studies that were published in English, journal article are summarized and discussed in this review. Results: In the last decade, implant surfaces were manufactured in a concerted effort to provide bone in a faster and improved osseointegration process. A variety of surface modifications have been developed and are currently being used to enhance clinical performance, including turned (machined), hydroxyapatite-coated surface, titanium plasma-sprayed, grit-blasted, acid-etched, anodization, laser-microtextured as well as combinations thereof. Conclusion: Dental implant survival rate relies heavily on the successful integration into the jawbone. Geometry and surface topography are critical to the short- and long-term performance of dental implants. Implant surface modifications expedited osseointegration process, which in turn, early and immediate loading of dental implants has emerged as a viable alternative to the conventional loading protocol.

Development of a diagnostic panel of biomarkers for predicting the survival rate of dental implants in patients of older age groups

Development of a diagnostic panel of biomarkers for predicting the survival rate of dental implants in patients of older age groups

Evaluation of the demographic profile of patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective clinical study

Aim: In this study, the aim is to evaluate the demographic profile as well as clinical aspects of patients who received implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) between 2016 and 2019 years.
 Methodology: Among 150 patients with implant-supported FDP, 120 contacted patients were included in the study. The patients were examined in terms of gender, age groups, edentulism, restoration type, implant location, implant survival rate, and abutment type by using the computer software. Data results were analyzed by descriptive statistical methods.
 Results: Three hundred and six dental implants were evaluated in a total of 120 patients, 55 men, and 65 women. The average age of the patients was 49.61 ± 11.84, and the most common dental implant application was in the 51–60 age group. Dental implants were frequently applied to the posterior mandible, and 31.9% of them were applied to patients in the 51–60 age group. A 94.8% implant survival rate was observed. A significant difference was found among age groups with laser-sintered metal-ceramics (LSMC) and all-ceramics (p<0.05). LSMC was the most common type of restoration, and straight abutments were frequently used.
 Conclusion: Although the survival rate of dental implants is high, implants with a medium length and diameter are frequently used. The type of restoration, type of abutment, and implant location in implant-supported FDP vary depending on the age and gender of the patients.
 
 How to cite this article: Demirci F, Tanık A. Evaluation of the demographic profile of patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective clinical study. Int Dent Res 2021;11(3):165-71. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no1.5
 
 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review.

Background and Objectives: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of these studies include limited subjects or hold a low level of evidence. The purpose of this review is to test the hypothesis of indifferent implant survival rates (ISRs) in AUBB and ALBB and determine the impact of various material-, surgery- and patient-related confounders and predictors. Materials and Methods: The national library of medicine (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were screened for studies reporting the ISRs of implants placed in AUBB and ALBB with ≥10 participants followed for ≥12 months from January 1995 to November 2021. The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed via several scoring tools, dependent on the study design. Means of sub-entities were presented as violin plots. Results: An electronic data search resulted in the identification of 9233 articles, of which 100 were included in the quantitative analysis. No significant difference (p = 0.54) was found between the ISR of AUBB (96.23 ± 5.27%; range: 75% to 100%; 2195 subjects, 6861 implants) and that of ALBB (97.66 ± 2.68%; range: 90.1% to 100%; 1202 subjects, 3434 implants). The ISR in AUBB was increased in blocks from intraoral as compared to extraoral donor sites (p = 0.0003), partially edentulous as compared to totally edentulous (p = 0.0002), as well as in patients younger than 45 as compared to those older (p = 0.044), cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous blocks (p = 0.005) and in delayed implantations within three months as compared to immediate implantations (p = 0.018). The ISR of ALBB was significantly increased in processed as compared to fresh-frozen ALBB (p = 0.004), but also in horizontal as compared to vertical augmentations (p = 0.009). Conclusions: The present findings widely emphasize the feasibility of achieving similar ISRs with AUBB and ALBB applied for pre-implant bone grafting. ISRs were negatively affected in sub-entities linked to more extensive augmentation procedures such as bone donor site and dentition status. The inclusion and pooling of literature with a low level of evidence, the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AUBB and ALBB and the limited count of comparative studies with short follow-ups increases the risk of bias and complicates data interpretation. Consequently, further long-term comparative studies are needed.

Survival rates of dental implants in patients with head and neck pathologies: 12-year single-operator study

To evaluate the survival rates of dental implants placed in patients with head and neck pathologies treated with resective surgery with or without free flap reconstruction, radiotherapy alone, and/or chemotherapy. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the survival of intraoral dental implants placed by the same surgeon over a 12-year period from 2007 to 2019. These implants were followed up clinically and radiographically for a period of 36 months postoperatively and throughout the restorative phase. A total of 190 patients with a total of 739 dental implants, comprising both intraoral and zygomatic implants, were included in this study. Overall, the dental implant survival rate was 95%, with a similar rate for dental implants placed in irradiated and nonirradiated bone (90% vs 93%). A lower implant survival rate was noted in implants placed in transplanted bone (79%). In cases of implant failure (n=17), 35% (n=6) of protheses survived and remained functional. Our findings support the placement of dental implants in patients with benign and malignant pathologies of the head and neck to improve their quality of life. However, we highlight the need for careful surgical planning and placement by experienced clinicians.

Survival of dental implants in patients with bone dysplasia: A systematic review

Objective: This study used published studies to assess the survival rate of dental implants placed in patients with bone dysplasia of the maxillofacial region.Material and methods: An electronic search without a specified date range was performed using the MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. No gender or age restrictions were applied.Results: Eighteen publications were found that met the study’s criteria, reporting data on 18 patients with bone dysplasia including cleidocranial dysplasia (CDD), fibrous dysplasia (FD), florid cemento-osseous dysplasia (FCOD), and odonto-maxillary segmental dysplasia (SOMD), who received a total of 130 implants, an average of 7.2 implants/patient (range 1 to 16). The mean age of the patients was 36.7 years (range 15 to 70 years). For implants placed in bone dysplasia, the survival rates were 100% for patients with CDD (n = 8), FD (n = 5), SOMD (n = 2), FCOD with implants inserted far from the lesions (n = 2) and 0% for dental implants inserted within FCOD (n = 1). The mean follow-up was 38.2 months (min 6, max 60).Conclusions: Dental implants placed in patients with dysplastic bone lesions show high survival rates, similar to those in the general population for CDD, FD, and SOMD. For FCOD, the failure rate was 100%.

Success of dental implants in patients with large bone defect and analysis of risk factors for implant failure: a non-randomized retrospective cohort study.

This study aimed to retrospectively investigate the success and survival rates of dental implants used for dentomaxillary prostheses at our hospital and the risk factors associated with large bone defects. A total of 138 external joint system implants used for dentomaxillary prostheses in 40 patients with large bone defects were included in this study. The alveolar bone at the site of implant insertion was evaluated using panoramic radiography and computed tomography. Various risk factors (demographic characteristics, dental status, and operative factors such as the employment of alveolar bone augmentation, the site, the length, and diameter of implants) for implant failure and complete implant loss were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses. The associations between the variables and the success and survival rates of dental implants were analyzed using the multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. The 10-year overall success and survival rates were 81.3% and 88.4% in this study. Multivariable analysis showed that the male sex (HR 6.22), shorter implants (≤ 8.5mm) (HR 5.21), and bone augmentation (HR 2.58) were independent predictors of success rate. Bone augmentation (HR 5.14) and narrow implants (≤ 3.3mm) (HR 3.86) were independent predictors of the survival rate. Male sex, shorter or narrow implants, and bone augmentation were independent risk factors for dental implants used in dentomaxillary prostheses in patients with large bone defects. Clinicians should consider these risk factors and pay close attention to the management of these patients.

Clinical Evaluation of Dental Implants with a Double Acid-Etched Surface Treatment: A Cohort Observational Study with Up to 10-Year Follow-Up.

Background and objectives: The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival and success rates of dental implants with a double acid-etched surface treatment with evaluation times up to 10 years post-loading. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted at a hospital oral surgery and implantology unit. It included 111 dental implants with a double acid-etched surface. Three groups were created: Group 1 (1–3 years loading), Group 2 (3–5 years loading), and Group 3 (over 5 years loading). Probing depth, resonance frequency analysis (ISQ value), and marginal bone loss were evaluated. Results: The data obtained underwent statistical analysis. Overall, 78 patients were included in the study, who received, in total, 111 dental implants, all replacing single teeth. Mean probing depth was 3.03 mm and mean ISQ was 65.54. Regarding marginal bone loss, in Group 1, 67.6% of implants did not undergo any thread loss, in Group 2, 48.3%, and in Group 3, 59.6%; 59.10% of all implants did not present thread loss with a mean bone loss of 0.552 mm. The implant survival rate was 99.1%, and the success rate was 96.37%. Conclusions: Implants with a double acid-etched surface showed excellent success rates in terms of marginal bone loss, ISQ, and probing depth after up to 10 years of loading, making them a clinically predictable treatment option. Future studies are needed to compare this implant surface with other types in different restorative situations.

Survival rate and peri-implant evaluation of immediately loaded dental implants in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo evaluate the survival rate, success rate, and peri-implant biological changes of immediately loaded dental implants (ILs) placed in type 2 diabetic patients (DM2).Materials and methodsThe present study was registered on PROSPERO and followed the PRISMA checklist. The search was performed by the first reviewer in January 2021. The electronic databases used were MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane, BVS, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, and gray literature. The risk of bias analysis was performed using an instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute.ResultsA total of 3566 titles and abstracts were obtained. The qualitative synthesis included 7 studies, while the quantitative synthesis included 5 studies. The meta-analysis of IL in individuals with DM2 compared to nondiabetic individuals showed no significant difference among the groups regarding the survival rate of dental implants (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.96–1.04; p = 0.91; I2 = 0%), even if the patient had poor glycemic control (RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.87–1.33; p = 0.48; I2 = 70%). Meta-analysis of marginal bone loss in IL compared to conventional loading in DM2 patients also showed no significant difference (mean difference = − 0.08, 95% CI − 0.25–0.08; p = 0.33; I2 = 83%).ConclusionsType 2 diabetes mellitus does not seem to be a risk factor for immediately loaded implants if the glycemic level is controlled, the oral hygiene is satisfactory, and the technical steps are strictly followed.Clinical relevanceRehabilitation in diabetic individuals is more common due to the highest prevalence of edentulism in this population. It is essential to establish appropriate protocols for loading dental implants.

Dental implants in individuals living with HIV-1: Results from a prospective study in patients undergoing highly active antiretroviral therapy.

To assess survival and success rates of dental implants and the occurrence of peri-implant diseases (mucositis/peri-implantitis) in HIV-1-infected individuals. In this prospective study, 13 HIV-1-infected individuals undergoing highly active antiretroviral therapy (with undetectable plasma HIV RNA levels, and CD4+ T cells>350/mm3 ) were followed after implant placement, as well as 13 non-HIV-1-infected matched controls. Patients enrolled in this study were followed up to 120 months (mean=40.6 months; standard deviation=22.2; range 18 -120 months). Twenty-five implants were placed in pristine healed sites for each group and bone augmentation procedures, when needed, were done only for contour augmentation. Patients were enrolled in a strict periodontal/peri-implant supportive therapy protocol with three recalls per year. The two groups were compared regarding subject-level characteristics (age, gender, smoking, diabetes) and implant-level characteristics (marginal bone level, peri-implant health status). All the implants healed uneventfully and reached 100% survival rates (after at least 18 months) in both groups. There were no significant differences between groups for peri-implant diseases (mucositis/peri-implantitis) and for all subject-level co-variables (p>.05). Only the variables dental implant prosthesis type (DIPT) (p=.021, d=.86) and follow up (p=.011, d=.77) showed statistically significant differences between groups. The findings suggest that well-controlled HIV-1-infected individuals are eligible to undergo implant therapy, achieving survival and success rates comparable to non-HIV-1-infected controls.

Top 100 cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the major journals of oral and maxillofacial surgery: a bibliometric analysis.

The aim of this bibliometric research was to identify and analyze the top 100 cited systematic reviews in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery in order to guide any professional level with interest in this topic and to map the current trends the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Using the Web of Science database without restrictions on publication year or language, a bibliometric analysis was performed for the five major journals of oral and maxillofacial surgery: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (IJOMS), Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS), Journal of Cranio-maxillofacial Surgery (JCMS),British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS), and Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology (Triple-O). The most top-cited systematic review was published in 2015 with a total of 200 citations on survival and success rates of dental implants, consistent with the finding that "pre- and peri-implant surgery and dental implantology," and "craniomaxillofacial deformities and cosmetic surgery" were the most frequently cited topics (22% each). The majority of top cited papers were published in IJOMS (43%), followed by JOMS (34%), Triple-O (8%), JCMS(8%) and BJOMS(7%). The highest number of contributions was from the Netherlands, followed by Italy and USA. The outcome of this article can be used as a source of information and to guide not just researchers but also clinicians and students to which areas are trending in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery, thus also having a large impact on the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, this article cannot reflect the quality of the included systematic reviews.

Clinical long-term and patient-reported outcomes of dental implants in oral cancer patients

Background and purposeThe aim of this clinical study was to investigate the clinical long-term and patient-reported outcome of dental implants in patients with oral cancer. In addition, analysis of the influence of radiation therapy, timing of implant insertion, and augmentation procedures on implant survival was performed.Material and methodsThis retrospective study investigated the clinical outcome of 711 dental implants in 164 oral cancer patients, inserted by experienced surgeons of the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated.ResultsCumulative 5-year and 10-year implant survival rates for all included implants were 87.3% and 80.0%. Implants placed straight after ablative surgery (primary implant placement) and implants placed after completing the oncologic treatment (secondary implant placement) showed a comparable implant survival (92.5% vs. 89.5%; p = 0.635). Irradiation therapy had no significant influence on implant survival of secondary placed implants (p = 0.929). However, regarding implant site (native bone vs. augmented bone) and radiation therapy (non-irradiated bone vs. irradiated bone), implants inserted in irradiated bone that received augmentation procedures showed a statistically significant lower implant survival (p < 0.001). Patients reported a distinct improvement in OHRQoL.ConclusionsPromising long-term survival rates of dental implants in patients after treatment of oral cancer were seen. In addition, patients benefit in form of an improved OHRQoL. However, bone augmentation procedures in irradiated bone may result in an impaired implants’ prognosis.

Management of systemic risk factors ahead of dental implant therapy: A beard well lathered is half shaved.

As the most successful therapy for missing teeth, dental implant has become increasingly prevalent around the world. A lot of papers have reported diverse local risk factors affecting the success and survival rate of dental implants, either for a short or a long period. However, there are also many types of systemic disorders or relatively administrated medicine that may jeopardize the security and success of dental implant treatment. Additionally, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic also poses a challenge to dental implant clinicians. Some of these risk factors are clinically common but to some extent unfamiliar to dentists, thus optimal measurements are often lacking when they occur in dental clinics. In this review, we analyze potential systemic risk factors that may affect the success rate of dental implants. Some of them may affect bone mineral density or enhance the likelihood of local infection, thus impeding osseointegration. Others may even systemically increase the risk of the surgery and threaten patients' life. In order to help novices receive high-risk patients who need to get dental implant treatment in a more reasonable way, we accordingly review recent research results and clinical experiments to discuss promising precautions, such as stopping drugs that impact bone mineral density or the operation, and addressing any perturbations on vital signs.

Long-Term Outcomes of Implants Placed in Autogenous Onlay Bone Grafts Harvested from Mandibular Ramus and Risk Analysis.

This study evaluated the long-term survival and success rates of dental implants placed with autogenous onlay block bone grafts harvested from the mandibular ramus. Patients treated with onlay bone graft from the mandibular ramus due to a severe vertical alveolar defect from 2001 to 2017 were included in this study. The marginal bone loss, success, and survival time of the implants were recorded and analyzed with clinical factors, such as time from bone graft to implant placement, type of implant prosthesis connection, history of periodontitis, and insertion depth. Seventy-five implants in 40 onlay bone-grafted areas of 38 patients were included, with a mean follow-up period of 102 months (range: 14 to 192 months). Two grafts were removed before implant placement. Of the 75 implants, 11 implants were lost. History of periodontitis and marginal bone loss at 6 months after implant placement were significantly associated with implant success. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that a marginal bone loss of 0.75 mm after 6 months of implant placement was related to implant success, with a sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 89.6%. Implants placed with onlay bone graft from ramal bone had more frequent biologic complications, and failures may be predicted by measuring the amount of implant bone loss after 6 months of placement.

Narrow Diameter Dental Implants as an Alternative Treatment for Atrophic Alveolar Ridges. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To determine the marginal bone loss and the survival, success and failure rates of narrow dental implants, a systematic literature search was carried out in the MEDLINE (Pubmed), Cochrane, Scopus, and Scielo databases for articles published between 2010 and 2021. The exclusion criteria were: systematic reviews, case reports, expert opinions; animal studies; samples of less than 10 subjects; follow-up periods of less than 36 months; smokers of minimum 10 cigarettes/day; and articles about mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage. Meta-analyses were performed to assess marginal bone loss and implant survival, success, and failure rates. Fifteen studies were included: 7 clinical trials, 3 randomized clinical trials, 3 cohort studies, and 2 case series. The total number of subjects was 773, in whom 1245 implants were placed. The survival rate for the narrow diameter implants was 97%, the success rate 96.8%, and the failure rate 3%. Marginal bone loss was 0.821 mm. All these data were evaluated at 36 months. Based on the literature, it can be considered that there is sufficient evidence to consider small diameter implants a predictable treatment option. These show favorable survival and success rates and marginal bone loss. All of them are comparable to those of standard diameter dental implants.