• Minimally invasive protocol¹
• Often no grafting necessary¹
• Immediate load possible in the mandible (stabilisation of dentures)¹
• Very cost-effective for the dental practice²
• Available diameters: 1.8 – 2.1 – 2.4 mm
• Available lengths: 10 – 13 – 15 – 18 mm
• Available abutmens: O-Ball Head – Square Head
• Variants: collared (thick gingiva) – classic (thin gingiva)

¹Ahn M-R, An K-A, Choi J-H, Sohn D-S.(2004) Immediate loading with mini dental implants in the fully edentulous mandible. Implant Dent
13: 367-372.
²Griffitts, T. M., Collins, C. P., Collins, P. C. Mini dental implants:(2005). An adjunct for retention, stability, and comfort for the edentulous patient. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology, 100 (5): E81-E84

• Long-term full denture stabilisation
• Long-term partial denture stabilisation
• Long-term fixation of small bridges

Implants are placed through a small pilot hole which is prepared with a 1.1 mm drill. No full osteotomy! Usually, the average depth is one-third to one-half the threaded length of the implant.

• A transgingival procedure is possible in many cases.¹
• The self-tapping design offers maximum primary stability (principle of osseo-compression). Especially in the mandible, immediate loading is therefore often possible (denture stabilisation).¹
• Prosthetic concept for denture stabilisation = soft loading: O-Rings in the attachments offer retention and simultaneously absorb the load. Original retention can be restored by simply changing an O-Ring. The dentures are still tissue-borne and thus, the load is not carried by the implants to the full extent.²
• Attachment designs with O-Rings forgive up to 30° divergence between two implants.¹

¹Ahn M-R, An K-A, Choi J-H, Sohn D-S.(2004) Immediate loading with mini dental implants in the fully edentulous mandible. Implant Dent 13: 367-372. ²Griffitts, T. M., Collins, C. P., Collins, P. C. Mini dental implants:(2005). An adjunct for retention, stability, and comfort for the edentulous patient. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology, 100 (5): E81-E84

An edentulous male patient in his mid 40s came to our dental practice in Berlin since he had problems with his mandibular denture. He reported that he used denture adhesives for fixation. Nevertheless, functionality and stability of this prosthesis were insufficient – it was so loose that he even had difficulty chewing. Since he was not able to carry the financial burden of a conventional implant treatment and desired a quick, comfortable solution, it was decided to place four MDI Mini Dental Implants in the anterior mandible for denture stabilization. Since the old prosthesis was in poor condition, the dentist, dental technician and patient agreed that a new denture should be fabricated in the dental laboratory.

Figure 1: The MDI Mini Dental Implants are available in four different diameters …

Figure 2: ….. and four lengths

Figure 3: Determination of the soft tissue depth using a periodontal probe

Figure 4: Marking of the implant positions in the mouth using a template

Figure 5: Blood indicates the desired implant locations

Figure 6: Drilling a pilot hole to a depth of one third to one half o the selected mini implant

Figure 7: Placement of the first mini dental implant

Figure 8: Implant insertion using a finger driver

Figure 9: Implant insertion using a winged thumb driver

Figure 10: Putting the implant into its final position with a torque wrench at a torque of 35 to 45 Ncm

Figure 11: Inserting the implants in the desired orientation

Figure 12: The four implants in correct positions

Figure 13: Marking of the implant positions on the denture base

Figure 14: Base prepared for polymerization

Figure 15: Placing the blockout shim on one of the implants

Figure16: The trimmed blockout shim in its ideal position

Figure 17: Placing the prosthesis in the patient’s mouth.

Figure 18: The acrylic sets intraorally under occlusion with normal pressure

Figure 19: Metal housings fixed in the openings of the denture base

Figure 20: The mechanical load is not carried by the implants alone

Mini dental implants for long-term fixed and removable prosthetics : A retrospective analysis of 2514 implants, placed in 531 patients over 5.5 years (mean 2.9 years)

• Minimal exclusion criteria: Severely atrophic bone, active intraoral infection
• Cox Proportional Hazard Model applied for risk evaluation
• Overall 145 Implants failed (5.8%, mobility with/without suppuration), only 2 cases failed!

Authors describe a learning curve with placement experience.

Mean survival rate 90% for removable prosthesis
(implant success criteria by Buser et al.)
Mandible: 95%
Maxilla: 84%

Multi-clinic evaluation using mini-dental implants for long-term denture stabilization

A total of 1029 implants were evaluated over 4 months to 8 years

Mean survival rate : 91,2 %

• Including Clinic‘s E failure rate of 31%!
  (Clinic E did not follow the protocol but used full osteotomy instead)

Mean survival rate excl. Clinic E: 94 %

• Success criteria by Albrektsson et al.
• „The overall success of the MDI system is affected by careful case selection and strict adherence to the recommended insertion / reconstructive Protocol“

Figure 1: Mean implant mortality rates for participating clinics

Mini-Dental Implant insertion with the auto-advance technique for ongoing applications

Histological evaluation of bone- implant interface, 2 retrieved human biopsies, 4 and 5 months post-op.

Low magnification photomicrograph shows close bone congruency to the implant surface

Higher magnification reveals osteocytes within their lacunae