Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Narrow- versus mini-implants at crestal and subcrestal bone levels. Experimental study in beagle dogs at three months

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This article was retracted on 28 December 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration and crestal bone loss (CBL) in two implant designs with different diameters (Mini Sky® and Narrow Sky®) implants, placed at different vertical levels at healed canine ridges.

Material and methods

The second, third, and fourth mandibular premolars of six Beagle dogs were extracted bilaterally. After 2 months healing, four implants divided into two groups according to their diameters (i.e., Narrow Sky® and Mini Sky®) were placed in each hemi-mandible at the level of the bone crest or 2 mm subcrestally. The animals were euthanized at 12 weeks and undecalcified samples were processed for histology. Histomorphometric analysis was carried out to compare bone-to-implant contacts (BIC) and crestal bone loss (CBL).

Results

There were not significant differences in CBL between groups when the implants were placed at subcrestal bone level (p > 0.05), meanwhile the CBL was significantly higher for both groups when the implants were inserted at crestal level (p < 0.05). All implants were osseointegrated presenting a minimum BIC percentage of 56 %. The major percentages of BIC were found for both groups at subcrestal level (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this experimental study may be concluded that the implant diameter does not affect the CBL. BIC values are affected by implant diameter and design been higher for narrow implants compared to mini-implants. Subcrestal insertion of both implants favors crestal bone preservation but crestal insertion of both designs is associated with crestal bone loss

Clinical relevance

The study shows that narrow implants protect peri-implant crestal bone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 04 January 2022

    Editor’s Note: The Editor-in-Chief is currently investigating this article as concerns have been raised about the figures. Further editorial action will be taken as appropriate once the investigation into the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.

  • 28 December 2023

    This article has been retracted. Please see the Retraction Notice for more detail: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05474-5

References

  1. Quek CE, Tan KB, Nicholls JI (2006) Load fatigue performance of a single-tooth implant abutment system: Effect of diameter. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 21:929–936

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Carinci F (2008) Clinical outcome of narrow diameter implants: a retrospective study of 510 implants. J Periodontol 79:49–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Albrektsson T, Gottlow J, Meirelles L, Ostman PO, Rocci A, Sennerby L (2007) Survival of NobelDirect implants: an analysis of 550 consecutively placed implants at 18 different clinical centers. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 9:65–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Galindo-Moreno P, Nilsson P, King P, Becktor J, Speroni S, Schramm A et al (2012) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of early loaded narrow diameter implants-1-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:609–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ohkubo C, Kobayashi M, Suzuki Y, Sato J, Hosoi T, Kurtz KS (2006) Evaluation of transitional implant stabilized overdentures: a case series report. J Oral Rehabil 33:416–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jofre J, Hamada T, Nishimura M, Klattenhoff C (2010) The effect of maximum bite force on marginal bone loss of mini-implants supporting a mandibular overdenture: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:243–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee YK, Kim JW, Baek SH, Kim TW, Chang YI (2010) Root and bone response to the proximity of a mini-implant under orthodontic loading. Angle Orthod 80:452–458

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Zinsli B, Sagesser T, Mericske E, MericskeStern R (2004) Clinical evaluation of small diameter ITI implants: a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:92–99

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Froum SJ, Cho SC, Cho YS, Elian N, Tarnow D (2007) Narrow- diameter implants: a restorative option for limited interdental space. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 27:449–455

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C, Folmer T, Henry P, Herrmann I et al (1990) Applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 5:272–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Olate S, Lyrio MC, de Moraes M, Mazzonetto R, Moreira RW (2010) Influence of diameter and length of implant on early dental implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:414–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cordaro L, Torsello F, Mirisola Di Torresanto V, Rossini C (2006) Retrospective evaluation of mandibular incisor replacement with narrow neck implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:730–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Carinci F (2007) Wide-diameter implants: analysis of clinical outcome of 304 fixtures. J Periodontol 78:52–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anitua E, Errazquin JM, de Pedro J, Barrio P, Begona L, Orive G (2010) Clinical evaluation of tiny 2.5- and 3.0-mm narrow-diameter implants as definitive implants in different clinical situations: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantol 3:315–322

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Balaji A, Mohamed JB, Kathiresan R (2010) A pilot study of mini implants as a treatment option for prosthetic rehabilitation of ridges with sub- optimal bone volume. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 9:334–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vigolo P, Givani A (2000) Clinical evaluation of single-tooth mini-implant restorations: a five-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 84:50–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Morneburg TR, Proschel PA (2008) Success rates of microimplants in Eden- tulous patients with residual ridge resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23:270–276

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mundt T, Scwahnn C, Stark T, Biffar R (2013) Clinical response of edentulous people treated with mini dental implants in nine dental practices. Gerodontology. doi:10.1111/ger.12066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Donath K, Breuner G (1982) A method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissues. The Säge-Schliff (sawing and grinding) technique. J Oral Pathol 11:318–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sohrabi K, Mushantat A, Esfandiari S, Feine J (2012) How successful are small- diameter implants? a literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:515–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Calvo-Guirado JL, Gomez Moreno G, Aguilar-Salvatierra A, Sanchez M, de Val JE, Abboud M, Nemcovsky CE (2014) Bone remodeling at implants with different configurations and placed immediately at different depth into extraction sockets. Experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/clr.12433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Calvo-Guirado JL, López-López PJ, de Val JE MS, Mareque-Bueno J, Delgado-Ruiz RA, Romanos GE (2014) Influence of collar design on peri-implant tissue healing around immediate implants: a pilot study in Foxhound dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/clr.12374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boquete-Castro A, Gómez-Moreno G, Aguilar-Salvatierra A, Delgado-Ruiz RA, Romanos GE, Calvo-Guirado JL (2014) Influence of the implant design on osseointegration and crestal bone resorption of immediate implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/clr.12381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Calvo-Guirado JL, Boquete-Castro A, Negri B, Delgado Ruiz R, Gómez-Moreno G, Iezzi G (2014) Crestal bone reactions to immediate implants placed at different levels in relation to crestal bone. A pilot study in foxhound dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:344–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Negri B, Calvo Guirado JL, de Val JE MS, Delgado Ruíz RA, Ramírez Fernández MP, Barona Dorado C (2014) Peri-implant tissue reactions to immediate nonocclusal loaded implants with different collar design: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:e54–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Negri B, Calvo-Guirado JL, de Val JE MS, Delgado Ruiz RA, Ramírez Fernández MP, Gómez Moreno G, Aguilar Salvatierra A, Guardia J, Muñoz Guzón F (2013) Biomechanical and bone histomorphological evaluation of two surfaces on tapered and cylindrical root form implants: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15:799–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Negri B, Calvo-Guirado JL, Ramírez-Fernández MP, Maté Sánchez-de Val J, Guardia J, Muñoz-Guzón F (2012) Peri-implant bone reactions to immediate implants placed at different levels in relation to crestal bone. Part II: a pilot study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:236–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Negri B, Calvo-Guirado JL, Pardo-Zamora G, Ramírez-Fernández MP, Delgado-Ruíz RA, Muñoz-Guzón F (2012) Peri-implant bone reactions to immediate implants placed at different levels in relation to crestal bone. Part I: a pilot study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:228–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Comfort MB, Chu FC, Chai J, Wat PY, Chow TW (2005) A 5-year prospective study on small diameter screw-shaped oral implants. J Oral Rehabilitation 32:341–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Caneva M, Botticelli D, Rossi F, Cardoso LC, Pantani F, Lang NP (2012) Influence of implants with different sizes and configurations installed immediately into extraction sockets on peri-implant hard and soft tissues: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:396–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, Baffone G, Lang NP, Botticelli D (2010) Influence of implant positioning in extraction sockets on osseointegration: histomorphometric analyses in dogs. Clin Oral Impl Res 21:43–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, Bressan E, Botticelli D, Lang NP (2010) Hard tissue formation adjacent to implants of various size and configuration immediately placed into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Impl Res 21:885–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Renouard F, Nisand D (2006) Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 7:35–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Romeo E, Ghisolfi M, Rozza R, Chiapasco M, Lops D (2006) Short (8-mm) dental implants in the rehabilitation of partial and complete edentulism: a 3- to 14-year longitudinal study. Int J Prosthodont 19:586–592

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Seo W, Kim SH, Chung KR, Nelson G (2009) A pilot study of the osseointegration potential of a surface-treated mini-implant: Bone contact of implants retrieved from patients. World J Orthod 10:202–210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim JW, Baek SH, Kim TW, Chang YI (2008) Comparison of stability between cylindrical and conical type mini-implants. Mechanical and histological properties. Angle Orthod 78:692–698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cesaretti G, Lang NP, Salata LA, Schweikert MT, Gutierrez Hernandez ME, Botticelli D (2014) Sub-crestal positioning of implants results in higher bony crest resorption: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Impl Res 0:1–6. doi:10.1111/clr.12467

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

    José Luis Calvo-Guirado, Carlos Pérez-Albacete & José E. de Val Maté-Sánchez

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Antonio Aguilar-Salvatierra, José E. de Val Maté-Sánchez & Gerardo Gómez-Moreno

  3. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    José E. de Val Maté-Sánchez, Rafael A. Delgado-Ruiz, Marcus Abboud & Georgios E. Romanos

  4. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain

    José E. de Val Maté-Sánchez & Eugenio Velasco

Authors
  1. José Luis Calvo-Guirado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlos Pérez-Albacete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio Aguilar-Salvatierra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José E. de Val Maté-Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rafael A. Delgado-Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marcus Abboud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eugenio Velasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gerardo Gómez-Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Georgios E. Romanos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Luis Calvo-Guirado.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calvo-Guirado, J.L., Pérez-Albacete, C., Aguilar-Salvatierra, A. et al. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Narrow- versus mini-implants at crestal and subcrestal bone levels. Experimental study in beagle dogs at three months. Clin Oral Invest 19, 1363–1369 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1381-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1381-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation