Clinical Comparative Study:Narrow And Regular Implants

To compare the survival rate, complication rate, marginal bone resorption, and facial bone thickness between narrow diameter implants and conventional diameter implants combined with GBR in the anterior areas Fifteen patients with single anterior tooth lost and alveolar ridge widths of 6-6.6mm were selected. 8 sites were implanted with 3.0mm diameter implants, and 7 sites were implanted with 3.6mm diameter implants combined with GBR. Facial bone thickness and marginal bone levels were measured at T1(post-operation) and T2(secondary operation) using CBCT and analyzed. Implant stability was measured at T2. Complications were recorded from T1 to T2. At T2, the survival rate of implants in both groups was 100% with no complications. The facial bone thickness of the conventional diameter implants was significantly greater at the middle and apical parts compared to the narrow diameter implants (P<0.05), with no significant difference at the neck; facial bone resorption was significantly higher at the neck and apical parts compared to the narrow diameter implants (P<0.05), with no significant difference at the middle part. There was no significant difference in marginal bone resorption between the two groups. There was no difference in implant survival rates or complications between the two groups. There were no significant differences in facial bone thickness and marginal bone resorption between the two surgical approaches, indicating that the use of narrow diameter implants alone can achieve clinical and radiological outcomes comparable to those of conventional diameter implants combined with GBR.