Narrow‐diameter versus regular‐diameter dental implants for mandibular overdentures: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThe 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsNarrow‐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.