We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14 (1999), No. 2     15. Apr. 1999
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14 (1999), No. 2  (15.04.1999)

Page 173-180

Influence of Variations in Implant Diameters: A 3- to 5-Year Retrospective Clinical Report
Ivanoff, Carl-Johan / Gröndahl, Kerstin / Sennerby, Lars / Bergström, Christina / Lekholm, Ulf
Sixty-seven patients ranging in age from 16 to 86 years were included in this 3- to 5-year retrospective report focusing on implant survival and marginal bone remodeling in relation to implant diameter. A total of 299 Brånemark implants (3.75-mm diameter: 141; 4.0-mm diameter: 61; 5.0-mm diameter: 97) were placed in 16 completely and 51 partially edentulous arches. Seven of the 141 implants in the 3.75-mm-diameter group failed (5%). The corresponding value for the 4.0-mm-wide implants was 2 of 61 (3%). The highest failure rate, 18% (17/97), was seen for the 5.0-mm-diameter implants. The least favorable cumulative survival rates were seen in mandibles after 5 years and involving 4.0-mm- and 5.0-mm-diameter implants (84.8% and 73.0%, respectively). The marginal bone loss was generally low over the 5-year period. When the data were evaluated by the Cox regression analysis, a relationship was found between implant failure and implant diameter (P < .05), with a higher failure rate for the 5.0-mm-diameter implant. However, no relationship could be seen between implant failure and jaw type, or bone quality and quantity (P > .05). Neither was any relationship seen between marginal bone loss and bone quality and quantity, implant diameter, or jaw type when tested by multiple linear regression analysis (P > .05). A learning curve, poor bone quality, and changed implant design were suggested as possible reasons for the less positive outcome seen for the 5.0-mm-diameter implant. The fact that this implant was often used as a rescue implant when the standard ones were not considered suitable or did not reach initial stability was another plausible explanation.

Keywords: Brånemark system, diameter, titanium oral implant, treatment result