Warning: Illegal string offset 'keywords_time' in /home/dental/public_html/wp-content/plugins/internal_link_building.php/internal_link_building.php on line 102
My opinion about the mini-implants
Recently there has been a resurgence in the use of mini-implants (1.8 2.4 mm in diameter). These implants have been introduced implants as temporary and are now used as a final solution for patients. This new idea is encouraged by some opinion leaders as an economic solution for patients. My only experience with a mini-implants has been the elimination of mini-implants fractured, then the idea of taking a course or two days and begin to put these flaplessly left me scratching my head.
Keep an open mind, * I have read a recent article published in the Compendium. I'd like to share my feelings after having examined the item. The article followed an impressive number of implants (2514) for a period of five years with a period evaluation of an average of just under 3 years. The reported average survival rate was 94.2%. While impressive, it corresponds to about 3.5% shy of our survival at 10 years the standard and large-diameter implants. This represents an increase of over 100% failure rate. In addition, 20 implants fractured during installation and are not included in survival analysis. If included, which increases the rate of failure of an additional 0.8%. The authors also preclude the application of such mini-implant-4 and quantity of bone marrow-D. These criteria represent areas where most failures occur with standard implants. If I remove the implants and short implants placed in bone of poor quality and are immediately loaded mandibular implants, my survival rate amounts to 99.38% ** published This represents an increase of 500% failure rate mini-implants.
After review, the article says that the average time of failure was about 6.4 months. Today most of the standard implants are loaded approximately eight weeks. The data published with standard implants show that most faults occur during the period of 8 weeks after placement. This means that most failures occur with standard implants before manufacturing the prosthesis, while that most failures of mini-implants can occur during or after manufacture of prostheses.
Several other interesting facts surface. First Instead, after three years of experience with the placing of MDI to achieve success rates of over 90%. Second, mini-implants have been much more successfully support fixed bridges, which is a costly restoration. Third, mini-implants used to support current prostheses had a survival rate of only 88%. Fourth, a large number of mini-implants are proposed in comparison with standard diameter implants. Fifthly, the implants in the posterior maxilla were 3.3 times more likely to fail. Sixth, the implant is made of the anti-extraction and, therefore, should not be used for immediate placement. Finally, mini-implants placed in support of the prosthesis were 4.3 times more likely to fail.
After reviewing this article, I remain of the opinion that the use of standard implants my treatment of choice. Never forget that patients are attached to these implants, and the best way to manage a complication is avoided first.
I congratulate the authors of published well-written objectives.
Mini Dental Implants * For fixed and removable prostheses in the long term. TE Shatkin, et al. Digest, Vol 28, No. 2 pp 92-99.
** An analysis of five years of life table A Multi-Center Study Participation loaded implants immediately in the edentulous mandible. Testori T, Meltzer AM. Clin Oral Implants Research, Vol.115, 2004.
About the Author
Alan M. Meltzer DMD, MScD is a graduate of the school of Dentistry at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He received his certificate of Periodontics at Boston University. Dr. Meltzer has published numerous articles in the field of dental implantology and bone grafting.
Tulsa Periodontist, Dr. David Wong, gets positive patient reviews about gum graft surgery