Deficient bone volume, anatomical limitations, lack of available mesiodistal space, adjacent teeth angulations, and surgical errors may lead to placement of narrow diameter implants. In such a scenario, functional and esthetic—yet sustainable—replacement of more than one missing tooth becomes quite challenging. This article describes the successful restoration of missing both mandibular central incisors on one 3-mm single-piece implant in 3 patients. Despite being a biomechanically complex presentation, the objectives of optimal outcome were achieved in all 3 patients by means of innovative design, fine control of occlusal factors, and correct choice of restorative material. Until the last follow-up at 5 years, no implant or prostheses loss was experienced.

Introduction

Replacement of lost teeth with dental implants is currently the preferred and predictable means of treatment unless indicated otherwise.1  The definitive outcome varies with patient-related factors such as preoperative hard and soft tissue volume, the need for implant bed improvement before osteotomy, and the patient's consent for the same. Operator-related parameters leading to satisfactory results include optimal implant placement in 3 dimensions plus appropriate prosthesis design and material selection that complement each other. However, for a long-term sustainable outcome, biomechanics of the whole implant-prosthetic system plays a significant role and must be given due consideration.

Implants are available in a myriad of dimensions to suit different clinical presentations. At present, there is no universally accepted classification of dental implants based solely on their diameter. Fixtures ≤2.9 mm in diameter are considered as mini, between 3–3.4 mm as narrow, 3.75–4 mm as regular, and 5–6 mm as wide diameter.2  In general, regular diameter two-piece systems are the first choice for implant-related treatment. Narrow diameter, single-piece implants (SPI) serve their function well when they support individual crowns of relatively small dimensions, particularly in functionally less demanding areas of the oral cavity such as a maxillary lateral incisor, mandibular incisors, and narrow spaces after orthodontic treatment. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) are also considered beneficial for elderly patients who refuse or are medically unfit for bone augmentation procedures.3 

The documented drawbacks of two-piece implants include weak abutment screw joint and increased bacterial colonization at fixture abutment interphase are resolved by SPI.46  These fixtures incorporate the bone anchoring portion, the intermediate part passing through the soft tissue, and the prosthetic abutment—all as one integral unit.7 

Negligible soft tissue manipulation during and after surgery, control over final prostheses margin, conventional prosthetic procedures of impression making and cementation, reduced prosthetic inventory, and decreased cost offer definite advantages to SPI over two-piece implants.8,9  Due to lack of abutment versatility, SPIs are required to be placed precisely in three dimensions for desirable prosthetic results.

SPIs are amenable to being manufactured in a small diameter because of their solid design and, therefore, are utilized in narrow esthetic zones to restore a single missing tooth. Their narrow configuration presents a biomechanical disadvantage due to increased stress levels at the implant-bone interface. By virtue of being narrow, SPIs maintain sufficient distance from the adjacent teeth, thereby preserving the interproximal bone and the gingival papillae.10,11 

This article describes the 5-year outcome in 2 patients for whom both mandibular central incisors were replaced on variably placed single-piece 3.0-mm implants.

Patients

Three patients reported for the replacement of missing both mandibular central incisors on dental implants placed 1.5 months prior (Table). Single one-piece 3.0 implants (Maximus 3.0, Biohorizon, Birmingham, Ala) were placed in variable positions in each one (Figure 1a through c). Deficiency in number, suboptimal 3-dimensional positioning, and impending cantilever fixed partial dentures (FPD) posed biomechanical challenges for a sustainable prosthetic restoration. As the prostheses would function in the esthetically critical zones, patients' expectations were very high, and they were eager to achieve the final outcome.

Table

Patient description with respect to implant dimensions, position, type of prosthesis design, cement used, and problems encountered

Patient description with respect to implant dimensions, position, type of prosthesis design, cement used, and problems encountered
Patient description with respect to implant dimensions, position, type of prosthesis design, cement used, and problems encountered
Figures 1 and 2

Figure 1. 3.0-mm, single-piece implant in variable positions: (a) midline, in patient 1, (b) mandibular left central incisor in patient 2, (c) mandibular left central incisor in patient 3. Figure 2. Monolith zirconia primary telescopic coping to reinforce the all-around dimensions of implant abutments: Margin designs as visible in (a) chamfer in patient 2 and (b) knife in patient 3.

Figures 1 and 2

Figure 1. 3.0-mm, single-piece implant in variable positions: (a) midline, in patient 1, (b) mandibular left central incisor in patient 2, (c) mandibular left central incisor in patient 3. Figure 2. Monolith zirconia primary telescopic coping to reinforce the all-around dimensions of implant abutments: Margin designs as visible in (a) chamfer in patient 2 and (b) knife in patient 3.

The clinical complexities concerning the implants (number, diameter, position), their impact on designing, prosthetic issues, and biomechanical limitations were discussed with the patients in detail. Placement of another implant was deliberated in 2 patients (patients 2 and 3) but was not agreed upon due to the requirement of second surgical intervention and for financial reasons.

Fully contoured temporary prostheses were delivered to restore the edentulous segment and partly fulfill the patients' unmet need for esthetics. No centric and eccentric contacts were maintained on the transitional restorations, and patients were advised against incising from the artificial teeth. Temporary prostheses were utilized so we could receive patient feedback on the design, tentative esthetic outcome, and the extent of deficiencies to be compensated in the final prostheses. Frequent loss of retention was observed in both patients where the implant was placed in the mandibular left central incisor region, causing their increasing anxiety. Placement of the second implant was again proposed but was denied.

It was then decided to reinforce the dimensions of the supragingival part of the implant in these patients by utilizing computer-aided designing and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) designed with primary telescopic coping. We fabricated a Monolith zirconia coping (Procera, Nobel Biocare, Washington, DC) to be cemented on the implant. The abutment of the implant was not prepared to create a margin for the primary coping, as this would have severely jeopardized the mechanical parameters and requirements for a stable and retentive prosthesis. A chamfer margin was created for the superstructure on the primary coping in patient 2, which caused difficulty in identification and removal of the residual cement. Therefore, the margin for patient 3 was designed as knife edge (Figure 2a and b).

Permanent Prostheses

In patient 1, a geminated tooth-like morphology was designed in the provisional prosthesis. There were no mechanical or esthetic issues during the entire evaluation period; therefore, the design of the provisional prosthesis was replicated in the final prosthesis (Figure 3a and b). In patients 2 and 3, subsequent to checking the primary coping fit, a pickup impression was made in polyvinylsiloxane (Imprint II Grant, 3M, ESPE, St Paul, Minn) for fabrication of the all-ceramic secondary superstructure. All FPDs were CAD-CAM designed and fabricated in the zirconia-based material (Procera, Nobel Biocare). Glass ionomer cement (GC, Fuji, Japan) was used as the luting agent.

Figures 3 and 4

Figure 3. Final prosthesis in patient 1: (a) geminated tooth-like morphology, (b) intra-oral peri-apical view of the prosthesis. Also shown is the space between the cervical part of the restoration and narrow cervical portion of the right mandibular lateral incisor (arrow). This was the cause of a transient complaint related to saliva collection during speech. Figure 4. Prosthesis at 5-year follow-up in patient 1: (a) the protrusive contact is present only on the implant supported part of the prosthesis. (b) Right lateral excursion. (c) Left lateral excursion. All excursive contacts are visibly omitted from the prosthesis.

Figures 3 and 4

Figure 3. Final prosthesis in patient 1: (a) geminated tooth-like morphology, (b) intra-oral peri-apical view of the prosthesis. Also shown is the space between the cervical part of the restoration and narrow cervical portion of the right mandibular lateral incisor (arrow). This was the cause of a transient complaint related to saliva collection during speech. Figure 4. Prosthesis at 5-year follow-up in patient 1: (a) the protrusive contact is present only on the implant supported part of the prosthesis. (b) Right lateral excursion. (c) Left lateral excursion. All excursive contacts are visibly omitted from the prosthesis.

Occlusal Contacts

The laboratory technician was given specific instructions to design the prostheses with light contact in maximum intercuspation; anterior guidance was placed only on the implant-supported part of the prostheses and the cantilever portion of the prostheses without contact during excursive movements (Figure 4a through c). The axial walls of the primary coping were designed to be as parallel as technically feasible to aid in the superstructure retention.

Outcome

During the entire 5-year period, none of the prostheses showed loss of retention, and there was no reported functional or esthetic complication of such severity that necessitated removal of the prostheses or implant. Patient 1 had a transient complaint (up to 3 months) of mild saliva ooze while speaking. The reason for this self-limiting issue was excessive space due to the narrow configuration at the cervical end of the prosthesis and the root of right lateral incisor (marked with an arrow in Figure 3a). Peri-implantitis in patient 3 was reported at around 4 years post cementation due to poor oral hygiene maintenance. It was resolved with oral prophylaxis and oral hygiene reinforcement (Figure 5a through e). No antimicrobials were prescribed. The supporting bone around the implants remained stable through the evaluation period in all 3 patients (Figure 6a through c).

Figure 5

Peri-implantitis in patient 3 at 4-year follow-up: (a) clinical appearance of the pathology, (b) heavy calculus deposits in the lingual area of mandibular incisors, (c) intra-oral peri-apical view showing stable bone around implant despite severe soft tissue inflammation, (d and e) normal peri-implant tissues after resolved inflammatory condition.

Figure 5

Peri-implantitis in patient 3 at 4-year follow-up: (a) clinical appearance of the pathology, (b) heavy calculus deposits in the lingual area of mandibular incisors, (c) intra-oral peri-apical view showing stable bone around implant despite severe soft tissue inflammation, (d and e) normal peri-implant tissues after resolved inflammatory condition.

Figure 6

Intra-oral periapical radiographs at 5 years. Stable prostheses, no implant fracture and acceptable peri-implant bone level around the implants in: (a) patient 1, (b) patient 2, and (c) patient 3.

Figure 6

Intra-oral periapical radiographs at 5 years. Stable prostheses, no implant fracture and acceptable peri-implant bone level around the implants in: (a) patient 1, (b) patient 2, and (c) patient 3.

Discussion

Treatment with NDI is a reliable option for a single-tooth replacement. Evidence of equally predictable survival rates with NDI (94–100%) to those obtained in restorations using larger diameter implants is available.12,13  Although the results with NDI are encouraging, it has been emphasized that the indications, treatment protocol, success, survival, frequency, and type of complications related to implant treatment vary with the decreasing diameter of dental implants.1418 

A meta-analysis showed that narrower implants (<3.3 mm) had significantly lower survival rates compared with wider implants (>3.3 mm). Many confounding variables impact the outcome: type of prosthesis, implant type, occlusal loads, parafunctional habits, and timing of prosthetic loading.2  The failure rate of narrow implants (<3.3 mm) was reported to be almost four times greater than regular implants and even higher for narrow and short implants.13,19 

One-piece NDI are placed in an already deficient edentulous site and, therefore, there is an increased possibility of surgical, prosthetic, and mechanical complications. A study by Ding et al10  revealed significantly higher stress values at the implant-bone interface when implant diameter was reduced to 3.3 from 4.1 mm in comparison to reducing the diameter to 4.1 from 4.8 mm. Further, the chances of implant fatigue fracture increase with reducing implant diameter.20  Even though it has been advised to use NDI only in areas of less functional loads, indications have been extended to support prostheses in posterior areas of the mouth21  and to replace multiple missing teeth with FPDs.22 

To best of author's knowledge, to date, there is no documented literature reporting the outcome of cantilever prosthesis on one single-piece 3.0-mm diameter implants. Except for the transient issue of peri-implantitis in one patient, all 3 patients experienced 5 years of complication-free treatment. It is reasonable to presume that the biomechanically unfavorable cantilever prostheses were made sustainable through (1) precise framework designing, (2) increasing the abutment dimensions with primary telescopic coping to aid in retention and stability of the superstructure, (3) controlling occlusal forces by selective contact only on the implant part of the prosthesis, and (4) preventing all excursive contacts accrued on the cantilever part of the FPDs.

The promising results achieved should be interpreted with caution, as the outcomes are based on a clinical report in only 3 patients. In the author's opinion, randomized control trials should be conducted to gather more data and to further investigate and compare the treatment outcome of different variables associated with cantilever prostheses on single-piece 3.0-mm implants.

Conclusion

In the absence of other available treatment options, single-piece 3.0-mm implants may serve as a less morbid, low-cost solution for replacement of two missing teeth in non–load-bearing areas in the oral cavity. Excellent control of occlusal parameters, along with mandatory systematic follow-up evaluations to diagnose and treat impending complications are prerequisites for such prostheses.

Abbreviations

    Abbreviations
     
  • CAD-CAM

    computer-aided designing and computer-aided manufacturing

  •  
  • FPD

    fixed partial dentures

  •  
  • NDI

    narrow diameter implants

  •  
  • SPI

    single-piece implants

Note

The manuscript was presented as a scientific poster at the 17th Biennial Meeting of the International College of Prosthodontists, September 7–9, 2017, in Santiago, Chile. The manuscript bears no conflict of interest.

References

1
Esposito
M,
Ardebili
Y,
Worthington
HV.
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2014
;
7:CD003815.
2
Ortega-Oller
I,
Suárez
F,
Galindo-Moreno
P,
et al.
The influence of implant diameter on its survival: a meta-analysis based on prospective clinical trials
.
J Periodontol
.
2014
;
85
:
569
580
.
3
Narby
B,
Kronstrom
M,
Soderfeldt
B,
Palmqvist
S.
Changes in attitudes toward desire for implant treatment: a longitudinal study of a middle-aged and older Swedish population
.
Int J Prosthodont
.
2008
;
21
:
481
485
.
4
Broggini
N,
McManus
LM,
Hermann
JS,
et al.
Persistent acute inflammation at the implant abutment interface
.
J Dent Res
.
2003
;
82
:
232
237
.
5
Jones
AA,
Cochran
DL.
Consequences of implant design
.
Dent Clin N Am
.
2006
;
50
:
339
360
.
6
Ledermann
PD.
A surface-treated titanium screw implant after 7 years of use
.
Quintessenz
.
1984
;
35
:
2031
2041
.
7
Laney
WR.
Glossary of oral and maxillofacial implants
.
Berlin
:
Quintessence
.
2008
:
112.
8
Hahn
JA.
Clinical and radiographic evaluation of one-piece implant used for immediate function
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2007
;
33
:
152
155
.
9
Prithviraj
DR,
Gupta
V,
Muley
N,
Sandhu
P.
One-piece implants: placement timing, surgical technique, loading protocol, and marginal bone loss
.
J Prosthodont
.
2013
;
22
:
237
244
.
10
Ding
X,
Zhu
XH,
Liao
SH,
Zhang
XH,
Chen
H.
Implant-bone interface stress distribution in immediately loaded implants of different diameters: a three-dimensional finite element analysis
.
J Prosthodont
.
2009
;
18
:
393
402
.
11
Sohn
DS,
Bae
MS,
Heo
JU,
Park
JS,
Yea
SH,
Romanos
GE.
Retrospective multicenter analysis of immediate provisionalization using one-piece narrow-diameter (3.0 mm) implants
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2011
;
26
:
163
168
.
12
Klein
MO,
Schiegnitz
E,
Al-Nawas
B.
Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2014
;
29
:
S43
S54
.
13
Sohrabi
K,
Mushantat
A,
Esfandiari
S,
Feine
J.
How successful are small-diameter implants? A literature review
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2012
;
23
:
515
525
.
14
Zembic
A,
Johannesen
LH,
Schou
S,
et al.
Immediately restored one-piece single-tooth implants with reduced diameter: one-year results of a multi-center study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2012
;
23
:
49
54
.
15
Barrachina-Diez
JM,
Tashkandi
E,
Stampf
S,
Att
W.
Long-term outcome of one-piece implants. Part I: implant characteristics and loading protocols. A systematic literature review with meta-analysis
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2013
;
28
:
503
518
.
16
Finne
K,
Rompen
E,
Toljanic
J.
Three-year prospective multicenter study evaluating marginal bone levels and soft tissue health around a one-piece implant system
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2012
;
27
:
458
466
.
17
Finne
K,
Rompen
E,
Toljanic
J.
Prospective multicenter study of marginal bone level and soft tissue health of a one-piece implant after two years
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2007
;
97
(
suppl 6
):
S79
S85
.
18
Barrachina-Díez
JM,
Tashkandi
E,
Stampf
S,
Att
W.
Long-term outcome of one-piece implants. Part II: Prosthetic outcomes. A systematic literature review with meta-analysis
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2013
;
28
:
1470
1482
.
19
Renouard
F,
Nisand
D.
Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
(
suppl 2
):
S35
S51
.
20
Allum
SR,
Tomlinson
RA,
Joshi
R.
The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2008
;
19
:
553
559
.
21
Maló
P,
Nobre
M.
Implants (3.3 mm diameter) for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior regions: a retrospective clinical study with up to 11 years of follow-up
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2011
;
13
:
95
103
.
22
Moraguez
O,
Vailati
F,
Grutter
L,
Sailer
I,
Belser
UC.
Four-unit fixed dental prostheses replacing the maxillary incisors supported by two narrow-diameter implants – a five-year case series
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2017
:
28
:
887
892
.