This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyze the risk of prosthesis complications across different implant diameters. An electronic search across PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until December 2023 was performed. Studies comparing implant prosthesis complications among extra-narrow (<3.0 mm), narrow (≥3.0 to <3.75 mm), standard (≥3.75 to <5 mm), and wide-diameter (≥5 mm) implants were included. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the risk ratio of prosthesis complications across different diameters, particularly in non-full arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDP). Eighteen clinical studies were included. In non-full arch ISFDP, the most prevalent complication was screw loosening in narrow, standard, and wide-diameter implants (17.28%, 4.08% and 12.45%, respectively), and decementation (3.4%) in extra-narrow diameter implants. In implant overdentures, extra-narrow, narrow and standard-diameter implants demonstrated high rates of retentive cap wear (58.33%, 80.49% and 70%, respectively), whereas wide-diameter implants had 16.67% overdenture repair. The meta-analyses showed a risk ratio of 0.20 (95% confidence interval= 0.04 to 0.94, p= 0.04) and 0.17 (95% CI= 0.06 to 0.45, p< 0.0004) for abutment fracture in single crowns and ISFDP comparing narrow versus standard-diameter implants. No significant differences in risk ratios were observed for screw loosening, decementation, porcelain chipping, fracture, or screw fracture among the different diameter groups. This systematic review highlights that screw loosening and retentive cap wear are the most common prosthesis complications in ISFDP and overdentures, regardless of implant diameter. While narrow-diameter implants have a lower risk of abutment fracture compared to standard-diameter implants, clinicians should carefully consider patient characteristics, implant locations, and abutment features when selecting the ideal implant diameter.
Read full abstract