{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.040455120101137804, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03034134007585335, 'mean_word_length': 5.18359375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Impact of dental implant diameter on the efficiency of fatigue: A systematic review analysis.

OBJECTIVE
To explain the success and failure of dental implant diameter on the efficiency of fatigue.


METHODS
The systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane databases for Original Articles published in the English language from 1999 to 2019. Outcomes were evaluated to determine perceptions regarding the role of dental implant diameter in influencing the implant's fatigue performance. Data was analysed using SPSS 22.


RESULTS
Of the 263 abstracts retrieved, 53(20%) were reviewed. Of them, 14(26.4%) were included; 9(64.3%) systematic reviews, and 5(35.7%) studies. The implant diameter could be categorised into wide diameter (5-6mm), regular diameter (3.75-4mm), and small/narrow diameter (3-3.4mm). The narrow diameter implants are indicated through thin alveolar ridges and mesiodistal spaces (<7mm). The implants with narrow diameter would offer greater risk of fatigue failure for clinical situations with significant functional loading (p<0.05). No significant differences were found either in success or failure of dental implant diameter on fatigue efficiency at 1-year and 3-year follow-ups (p>0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
The technical complication of dental implant included abutment screw loosening or fracture, abutment and superstructure fracture, and implant body fracture. The review mainly focussed on the impact of dental implant diameter on the efficiency of fatigue and reviewed a significant impact of dental implant diameter on the fatigue efficiency.