Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2002; 19:3-4
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 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728
Alshenaiber R, Cowan C, Barclay C, Silikas N Analysis of residual ridge morphology in a group of edentulous patients seeking NHS dental implant provision – a retrospective observational lateral cephalometric study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11 https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11122348
Jawad S, Barclay C, Whittaker W, Tickle M, Walsh T 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
Alshenaiber R, Silikas N, Barclay C Does the length of mini dental implants affect their resistance to failure by overloading?. Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10 https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10070117
Alshenaiber R, Barclay C, Silikas N The effect of number and distribution of mini dental implants on overdenture stability: an in vitro study. Materials (Basel). 2022; 15 https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15092988
Alshenaiber R, Barclay C, Silikas N The effect of mini dental implant number on mandibular overdenture retention and attachment wear. Biomed Res Int. 2023; 2023 https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7099761
Barclay CW, Jawad S, Foster E Mini dental implants in the management of the atrophic maxilla and mandible: a new implant design and preliminary results. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26:190-196 https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01830Barclay07
Chu SJ, Tan-Chu JHP, Saito H Tapered versus inverted body-shift implants placed into anterior post-extraction sockets: a retrospective comparative study. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2020; 41:e1-e10
Song SJ, Chu SM, Chu SJ A comparative analysis of dual-axis implants placed into maxillary anterior extraction sockets versus virtual planning with uniaxial implants: a simulated cone beam computed tomography study of implant length and diameter. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023; 35:206-214 https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13011
O'Hooley DB, Nicolopoulos C, Worthing M Outcomes of a one year, retrospective single-arm cohort study using both a novel body-shift implant design with a novel alloplastic particulate grafting material in immediate extraction sockets. Preprints. 2023; https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202309.1890.v1
Howes D Angled implant design to accommodate screw-retained implant-supported prostheses. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2017; 38:458-463
Egbert N, Ahuja S, Selecman A, Wicks R Angulated implants for fabrication of implant supported fixed partial denture in the maxilla. J Dent (Shiraz). 2017; 18:304-313
Fairbairn P, Kilner S, O'Hooley D, Fish A, Kurtzman GM Sinus augmentation for implant placement utilizing a novel synthetic graft material with delayed immediate socket grafting: a 2-year case study. J Clin Med. 2023; 12 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12072485
Koutouzis T, Huwais S, Hasan F, Trahan W, Waldrop T, Neiva R Alveolar ridge expansion by osseodensification-mediated plastic deformation and compaction autografting: a multicenter retrospective study. Implant Dent. 2019; 28:349-355 https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000898
Vandeweghe S, Ackermann A, Bronner J, Hattingh A, Tschakaloff A, De Bruyn H A retrospective, multicenter study on a novo wide-body implant for posterior regions. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14:281-292 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00253.x
Aunmeungtong W, Kumchai T, Strietzel FP, Reichart PA, Khongkhunthian P 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 https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12461
Wessels R, Cosyn J, Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Christiaens V A 5 to 7-year case series on single angulated implants installed following papilla-sparing flap elevation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021; 400-407 https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12988
Vandeweghe S, Ackermann A, Bronner J, Hattingh A, Tschakaloff A, De Bruyn H A retrospective, multicenter study on a novo wide-body implant for posterior regions. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14:281-292 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00253.x
Extremes of implant dentistry, from minis to maxes and beyond: evaluating new implant designs and techniques Craig Barclay Dominic O'Hooley Dental Update 2025 52:4, 232-242.
Modern dental implantology dates back to 1952 when Professor Per-Ingvar Brånemark discovered that titanium can enable bone to metal integration, without an intervening fibrous tissue layer. The first titanium dental implant was reported as being placed in 1965. Dental implants have since evolved and are used for single teeth, fixed bridgework, immediate loading and full-arch reconstructions for edentulous patients and in the management of the head and neck cancer. The result of this evolution is a range of site-specific dental implants. This article provides an overview of the role of the different site-specific implants within the maxillary/mandibular bony envelope, and the place they may have in dental rehabilitation. The focus will be on the extremes of implant size category, described as minis and maxes for the purpose of this overview.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: An awareness of different implant morphology for specific sites is useful.
Article
The breakthrough for modern dental implantology happened in 1952 when Professor Per-Ingvar Brånemark discovered that the metal titanium can enable direct bone to metal integration without an intervening fibrous tissue layer. The first titanium dental implant was reported as being placed in 1965. Dental implants have since evolved and are used in patients who are edentulous (supported by the McGill and York consensus statements), in the management of those with head and neck cancer, and for single teeth, fixed bridgework, immediate loading and full-arch reconstructions.1,2
The result of this evolution is a range of site-specific dental implants of many sizes and shapes with distinct morphological characteristics specific to their proposed use within the masticatory system (Table 1). The application of dental implants has evolved from the early 1970s where they were originally placed in the edentulous mandible, progressing to their use in the aesthetic zone.
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:
