Skip to content

Rehabilitation of Single Aesthetic Areas Using Narrow Diameter Implants

Rehabilitation of Single Aesthetic Areas Using Narrow Diameter Implants With Computer Guided Implant Insertion: a Prospective Study

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06528587
Acronym
IDR
Enrollment
17
Registered
2024-07-30
Start date
2024-09-01
Completion date
2025-11-01
Last updated
2026-01-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Implant Complication

Keywords

narrow diameter implant

Brief summary

The scientific literature does not provide scientific evidence on how to manage patients suffering from monoedentulism with ridges having a reduced bone thickness or a reduced mesio-distal space. Narrow diameter implants could be a solution to rehabilitate patients suffering from these clinical conditions while avoiding longer, more complex and sometimes even multidisciplinary therapies. However, there is a lack of clinical studies analyzing the outcomes of rehabilitation with narrow diameter implants.

Detailed description

Dental implants are considered a predictable rehabilitation option in the event of tooth extraction or missing tooth. In some cases, the inevitable resorption of the alveolar ridge after tooth extraction can make the insertion of dental implants difficult or even impossible without the use of more advanced bone regeneration procedures. Narrow diameter implants represent an alternative treatment option in areas with limited ridge width. Narrow alveolar ridges and limited interdental or inter-implant spaces continue to pose a challenge to the clinician. In the case of a narrow ridge, two options are available: the first option is to insert a standard diameter implant following bone augmentation procedures; the second option is to use an implant with a narrow diameter. Regarding the mesio-distal gap, an adequate distance between teeth and implants is necessary to reduce subsequent bone resorption and recession of the papillae. Difficult clinical situations with limited mesio-distal space or reduced ridge width can be overcome by using narrow diameter implants. Correct three-dimensional implant positioning is the key factor to obtain, in addition to good integration, favorable prosthetic results and a good long-term aesthetic result. To optimize the insertion of the implants, reducing the intrinsic imprecision of the conventional free-hand technique, computer-guided static surgery protocols can be used to plan the angulation, position and depth of the implant with a digital software. Narrow diameter implants therefore have their own indication for the replacement of lateral incisors of the maxilla and for the incisors of the mandible.

Interventions

PROCEDUREnarrow diameter implant

Rehabilitation of single edentulism in the anterior region with narrow diameter implants and computer guided surgery.

Sponsors

Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Patients who have undergone implant surgery to perform implant rehabilitation of single edentulism in the anterior region to insert a reduced diameter implant; * ASA I and ASA II patients; * Age \> 18yr; * Non-smokers or smokers ≤ 5 cig/day; * Achievement of FMPS and FMBS ≤ 15%; * Signing of the written informed consent to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria

* Severe general medical pathologies; * Immunodeficiency states; * Radiotherapy in the head and neck region; * Uncontrolled diabetes or hypertension; * Smokers \>5 cigs/day; * Impossibility to carry out homogeneous and continuous follow-up; * Documented allergy to the biomaterials used; * Pregnancy or breastfeeding; * Inability to provide written informed consent.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
peri-implant marginal bone loss in millimeters12 months from implant placementevaluation of the peri-implant marginal bone loss in millimeters

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
soft tissue evaluation in millimeters12 months from implant placementevaluation of marginal soft tissues levels in millimeters
biological complication rate in percentage12 months from implant placementevaluation of biological complications in percentage
esthetics12 months from implant placementevaluation of the esthetics using the PES score
mechanical complication rate in percentage12 months from implant placementevaluation of mechanical complications in percentage

Countries

Italy

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026