Mini Dental Implants Reviews Can Help You Make an Informed Decision


Getting a dental implant can be a significant decision. There are many factors to consider, including cost, longevity, and potential side effects. Luckily, several reviews on the Internet can help you make an informed decision.

Disadvantages of mini implants

Compared to traditional implants, mini implants are cheaper, smaller, and less invasive. Moreover, they’re easier to implement.

Mini implants also require less time to heal and are generally more durable. Nevertheless, there are a few disadvantages to using mini implants.

First and foremost, they may not be suitable for every case. Ta mini implant’s longevity depends on several factors, including the health of your jawbone.

Mini implants are also smaller in size and cannot take the same force as the root of a tooth. Thus, they are not recommended for routine use.

While they’re not as expensive as their conventional counterparts, they’re neither free. Some insurance companies might consider them to be cosmetic. If you’re considering a mini implant, check with your dental insurance company to see if they’ll cover the cost.

Although mini implants can offer the same benefits as a traditional implant, the latter may be the better option. The mini implant is half the size of a conventional one, and the process is usually faster and simpler.

On the other hand, the mini implant may not be the sexiest, and it’s not exactly the most affordable way to replace missing teeth.

Depending on the number of teeth you’re replacing, it’s not a bad idea to invest in a few.


Whether you are considering a mini dental implant or a traditional one, it is essential to know what to expect. If you are unsure, you can consult a dentist for more information. He may recommend a treatment that fits your needs and budget.

In most cases, the cost of mini implants is much lower than that of regular ones. This is because they are smaller and require fewer steps. The procedure is also less invasive. For example, a dentist may be able to perform the function under local anesthesia without the use of IV sedation.

You can expect a range of $500 to $1,500 for a single mini dental implant, but that number can rise to $3,000 or more, depending on your city. A mini implant has the same essential components as a full-sized one, including a titanium post, crown, and corresponding copings.

The mini implant may be the best option for some people. However, the traditional implant is often a better choice for long-term stability.

Unlike a mini implant, a traditional implant is a more permanent solution. It is typically placed in the lower jaw. This makes it suitable for patients with low bone density.

It would be best if you also considered that you would need a professional to restore after your surgery. In addition, you will need to have your denture reshaped to fit the new implant. The good news is that many dentists will offer a payment plan so you can cover the costs.

Long-term survival rates

Several studies have evaluated the long-term survival rates of mini dental implants. Large-scale studies have reported that implants can be expected to have a survival rate of between 93.3 and 98% at five years. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the long-term survival rate between short bone-level and tissue-level implants.

This study aimed to determine the long-term survival rates of two mini-implant systems, namely MT and SLA. In addition, data from radiographs were analyzed to determine the overall survival rates. Among the 285 patients who completed the study, 32 implants were lost.

The failures of eight implants were due to mobility, infection, and no osseointegration. The remaining eight implants were splinted, unpainted, or combined with a ball or locator attachment. The mean torque range was less than 15 Ncm for all failing mini-implants.

The mean PPD was measured at the distal and mesial sites. During the first six months, the PPD decreased, but the measured PPD remained within the norm for conventionally placed implants. The PPD increased to 2.34 +- 1.18 mm at the five-year follow-up.

Patient satisfaction was assessed by the ability to chew, fit of the restoration, and appearance. In addition, the majority of patients reported no postinsertion pain.

The mini-implant system designed with an instrumentation surface was considered more straightforward to use than the SLA system. However, the difference in the surface characteristics did not influence the success of the mini-implant.