Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2026
05:54
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
7-mm-Diameter Versus 5-mm-Diameter Immediate Post-Extraction Implants in the Molar Region: 1-Year Results from a
Summary
This study found that 7.0-mm wide-diameter implants and 5.0-mm conventional-diameter implants showed similar survival rates and esthetic outcomes after molar extraction. However, the wider implants had more minor complications, suggesting further research is needed.
Area of Science:
- Dental Implantology
- Prosthodontics
- Oral Surgery
Background:
- Immediate post-extraction molar implants offer a streamlined treatment approach.
- Comparing wide-diameter (7.0-mm) versus conventional-diameter (5.0-mm) implants in molar sites is crucial for clinical decision-making.
- Understanding the clinical effectiveness of different implant diameters is essential for optimizing patient outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical effectiveness of 7.0-mm wide-diameter implants versus 5.0-mm conventional-diameter implants placed immediately after molar extraction.
- To evaluate implant survival, complications, patient satisfaction, marginal bone level changes, and esthetic outcomes.
- To provide preliminary data for larger randomized clinical trials.
Main Methods:
- A multicenter randomized controlled trial involving 39 patients undergoing immediate post-extraction molar implant placement.
- Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 7.0-mm (n=19) or 5.0-mm (n=20) implant.
- Outcomes including implant failures, complications, marginal bone loss (MBL), and pink esthetic score (PES) were assessed 1 year after loading.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in implant survival rates was observed between the 7.0-mm and 5.0-mm groups (one failure in the 5.0-mm group).
- A statistically significant higher incidence of minor complications was noted in the 7.0-mm group (21.1%) compared to the 5.0-mm group (0%).
- Both groups demonstrated comparable patient satisfaction, pink esthetic scores (PES), and marginal bone loss (MBL) at 1 year post-loading.
Conclusions:
- Preliminary 1-year data suggest similar implant survival, esthetic outcomes, and marginal bone loss between 7.0-mm and 5.0-mm diameter implants in molar extraction sites.
- Wider diameter implants (7.0-mm) were associated with a higher rate of minor complications.
- Larger randomized clinical trials are recommended to confirm these findings due to the study's small sample size.
