Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient‐reported outcomes
Authors: Jung Ronald E. , Al‐Nawas Bilal , Araujo Mauricio , Avila‐Ortiz Gustavo , Barter Stephen , Brodala Nadine , Chappuis Vivianne , Chen Bo , De Souza Andre , Almeida Ricardo Faria , Fickl Stefan , Finelle Gary , Ganeles Jeffrey , Gholami Hadi , Hammerle Christoph , Jensen Simon , Jokstad Asbjørn , Katsuyama Hideaki , Kleinheinz Johannes , Kunavisarut Chatchai , Mardas Nikos , Monje Alberto , Papaspyridakos Panos , Payer Michael , Schiegnitz Eik , Smeets Ralf , Stefanini Martina , ten Bruggenkate Christiaan , Vazouras Konstantinos , Weber Hans‐Peter , Weingart Dieter , Windisch Péter 
Published: October 2018

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non‐tapered implant design), and (d) medication‐related dental implant failures were addressed.Materials and methodsFour systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.ResultsShort implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow‐up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants.Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm (“Mini‐implants”); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3.Tapered versus non‐tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate.ConclusionsIt is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non‐tapered dental implants.Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.