Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997; 8:161-72 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x
Sendax VI. Mini-implants as adjuncts for transitional prostheses. Dent Implantol Update. 1996; 7:12-15
Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Narrow-diameter implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29:21-40 https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13272
Griffitts TM, Collins CP, Collins PC. Mini dental implants: an adjunct for retention, stability, and comfort for the edentulous patient. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005; 100:e81-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.06.018
Shatkin TE, Petrotto CA. Mini dental implants: a retrospective analysis of 5640 implants placed over a 12-year period. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012; 33 Spec 3:2-9
Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Clinical evaluation of small-diameter implants in single-tooth and multiple-implant restorations: a 7-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:703-709
Vigolo P, Givani A. Clinical evaluation of single-tooth mini-implant restorations: a five-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84:50-4 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.107674
Jawad S, Barclay C, Whittaker W A pilot randomised controlled trial evaluating mini and conventional implant retained dentures on the function and quality of life of patients with an edentulous mandible. BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0333-1
Flanagan D. Implant-supported fixed prosthetic treatment using very small-diameter implants: a case report. J Oral Implantol. 2006; 32:34-37 https://doi.org/10.1563/778.1
Flanagan D. Fixed partial dentures and crowns supported by very small diameter dental implants in compromised sites. Implant Dent. 2008; 17:182-191 https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31817776cf
Altug-Atac AT, Erdem D. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131:510-514 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.027
Araújo EA, Oliveira DD, Araújo MT. Diagnostic protocol in cases of congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors. World J Orthod. 2006; 7:376-388
Endo T, Ozoe R, Kojima K, Shimooka S. Congenitally missing mandibular incisors and mandibular symphysis morphology. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77:1079-1084 https://doi.org/10.2319/020106-37.1
Froum SJ, Natour M, Cho SC Expanded clinical applications of narrow-diameter implants for permanent use. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020; 40:529-537 https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.4565
Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent. 1972; 27:120-132 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(72)90188-6
Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients – the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009; 207:185-186
Misch C., 3rd edn. St Louis, MO, USA: Mosby; 2008
Mazor Z, Steigmann M, Leshem R, Peleg M. Mini-implants to reconstruct missing teeth in severe ridge deficiency and small interdental space: a 5-year case series. Implant Dent. 2004; 13:336-341 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000148554.83439.00
Aunmeungtong W, Kumchai T, Strietzel FP Comparative clinical study of conventional dental implants and mini dental implants for mandibular overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 19:328-340
Zygogiannis K, Aartman IH, Parsa A Implant mandibular overdentures retained by immediately loaded implants: a 1-year randomized trial comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between mini dental implants and standard-sized implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32:1377-1388 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5981
Zygogiannis K, Aartman IH, Wismeijer D. Implant mandibular overdentures retained by immediately loaded implants: a 1-year randomized trial comparing patient-based outcomes between mini dental implants and standard-sized implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33:197-205 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6009
Caneva M, Botticelli D, Salata LA Flap vs. “flapless” surgical approach at immediate implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21:1314-1319 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01959.x
Jawad S, Clarke PT. Survival of mini dental implants used to retain mandibular complete overdentures: systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34:343-356 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6991
Cao ZL, Li X, Lin LJ, Chen YH. Immediate or delayed loading protocols for two-implant mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126:742-748 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.011
de Souza RF, Ribeiro AB, Della Vecchia MP Mini vs. standard implants for mandibular overdentures: a randomized trial. J Dent Res. 2015; 94:1376-1384 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515601959
Mundt T, Al Jaghsi A, Schwahn B Immediate versus delayed loading of strategic mini dental implants for the stabilization of partial removable dental prostheses: a patient cluster randomized, parallel-group 3-year trial. BMC Oral Health. 2016; 17
Mini-dental implants (MDIs) are defined as dental implants with a diameter of less than 3 mm, made of the same biocompatible material as conventional dental implants. Their use to replace missing teeth as well as to support complete overdentures is very well documented in the literature. Additional indications for their use include placement in interdental spaces with insufficient space to warrant placement of conventional dental implants and in cases where surgical bone augmentation procedures are contraindicated. In general, MDIs are less invasive, require less time, result in less post-operative morbidity and are more cost effective in comparison to conventional dental implants.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Dental implants are the fastest growing area in dentistry and MDIs have been exhibiting an increase in popularity. They are considered a viable treatment option due to their associated decreased surgical morbidity, their clinical efficiency with immediate-loading being the norm and above all cost-effectiveness.
Article
An increasing number of patients request reliable long-term treatment options, and dental implants have exhibited exponential growth within the profession since their introduction. Numerous dental implant studies have in the past, demonstrated high success rates and excellent predictability.1 Conventional dental implants were introduced in the 1960s by Dr Brånemark, and the introduction of mini-dental implants (MDIs) in the 1970s was a useful development.2 They were first introduced by Dr Sendax and later marketed by IMTEC Corporation.3
Dental implants have been revolutionary in replacing single and multiple teeth, and restoring function in edentulous arches. However, atrophy of the alveolar crest following dental extractions, with reduced bone volume in both vertical and bucco-lingual dimensions limits the use of conventionally sized dental implants.4
The presence of inadequate bone volume in areas such as the maxillary lateral incisor region and mandibular incisors, or in other areas where alveolar bone has been affected by trauma, malformation, neoplasia and prolonged denture-wearing can make the placement of conventional implants impractical without surgical augmentation.4
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
