Wide-diameter implants
Also known as: Wide diameter implant, Wide-body implant, Molar implant
Implants with a diameter above the usual standard range, generally used to replace a molar or to engage a wide healed ridge or extraction socket.
Research in progress. Some fields on this entry are not yet verified against a primary source, so we have left them blank rather than filling them in — and this page is not published to search engines until they are.
Key facts
| Defining threshold | Sources conflict(No agreed threshold: a six-year prospective comparative study designated 6 mm implants as wide and 4 mm as standard, while the 2016 European Consensus Conference guideline defines short, angulated and diameter-reduced implants but sets no threshold for wide-diameter implants) |
|---|---|
| Clinical evidence | A six-year prospective comparative study in posterior sites reported survival of 97.29% for 6 mm diameter implants and 94.87% for 4 mm diameter implants, a difference that was not statistically significant, with no implant fractures in either groupClinical evidence |
| Typical use | Chosen mainly to match the width of a molar socket or to improve the crown-to-implant relationship at a single molar site, where a standard-diameter implant would leave a wide, unsupported crown. |
| Limitations | A wide implant needs the ridge width to accommodate it with bone left on the cheek side; placing one in a ridge that is only just wide enough risks leaving a thin or dehisced buccal plate. Width is also not a substitute for length in every situation, and the two decisions are made together rather than traded off freely. |
| Available diameters | Insufficient evidence(Available diameters differ by system; we have not attached a sourced range) |
Overview
A wide-diameter implant is one chosen to fill a broad site — most often a molar position, where a standard fixture would sit under a crown far larger than itself. The honest answer to "how wide is wide" is that nobody has settled it: one six-year study treats 6 mm as wide and 4 mm as standard, whereas the European guideline that defines short and diameter-reduced implants sets no wide threshold at all, so published figures are not directly comparable. What comparative data exist suggest no significant survival penalty against standard-diameter implants in posterior sites over six years. The limiting factor is anatomical rather than mechanical: the ridge has to be wide enough to leave sound bone on the outer surface, and that is a question for examination and imaging, not for a specification table.