Narrow-diameter versus standard-diameter implants placed in horizontally regenerated bone in the rehabilitation of partially and completely edentulous patients: A systematic review

Purpose: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the available evidence in the literature to answer the following focused question: In partially edentulous arches with reduced bone width, do implants placed after horizontal bone augmentation exhibit differences in survival and success rate compared to narrow-diameter implants placed in native bone? Materials and methods: A population, intervention, comparison and outcome question was defined and an electronic search was conducted using the MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases to identify all studies analysing the use of standard-diameter implants inserted in regenerated bone or narrow-diameter implants for the rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulous atrophic maxillae and mandibles. Inclusion criteria and quality assessments were established, and studies were selected on this basis. Results: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and were analysed cumulatively. A comparative meta-analysis was not possible due to the lack of studies directly comparing the two rehabilitation methods in question. A cumulative implant survival rate of 97.80% (1246/1274; pooled proportion 0.984, 95% confidence interval 0.977–0.991) was reported for the narrow implants placed in atrophic ridges, while similar results were obtained for the standard-diameter implants placed in regenerated bone, with a cumulative implant survival rate of 97.94% (1332/1360; pooled proportion 0.983, 95% confidence interval 0.976–0.990). Conclusions: The present systematic review found high and comparable survival rates between narrow and standard-diameter implants placed in regenerated bone; however, well-designed randomised controlled trials are required to support the hypothesis that both treatment strategies are successful in comparable circumstances.