-
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2023The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prosthesis as a treatment option after mandibular condyle... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prosthesis as a treatment option after mandibular condyle fracture. Three databases were searched (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) and 2670 unique papers were identified. A total of 337 studies were included (121 case reports, 89 case series, and 127 cohort/clinical studies). In total 14,396 patients and 21,560 prostheses were described. Of the 127 cohort or clinical studies, 100 (79%) reported inclusion criteria, 54 (43%) reported exclusion criteria, and 96 (76%) reported the inclusion period. The base population from which patients were recruited was reported in 57 studies (45%). The reason for TMJ prosthesis implantation was reported for 4177 patients (29.0%). A history of condylar fracture was present in 83 patients (2.0%); a history of mandibular trauma was present in 580 patients (13.9%). The meta-analysis showed a pooled prevalence of condylar fracture of 1.6% (95% confidence interval 0.9-2.4%) and a pooled prevalence of trauma or condylar fracture of 11.3% (95% confidence interval 7.1-16.0%). Heterogeneity was highly significant (P < 0.001). The TMJ prosthesis appears to be reserved for patients with persistent pain, bony or fibrous ankylosis, or osteomyelitis after primary closed or open treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Condyle; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Tooth Ankylosis; Mandibular Fractures; Temporomandibular Joint; Ankylosis
PubMed: 35752530
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.05.014 -
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related... Dec 2014The study aims to evaluate the all-on-four treatment concept with regard to survival rates (SRs) of oral implants, applied fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and temporal... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The study aims to evaluate the all-on-four treatment concept with regard to survival rates (SRs) of oral implants, applied fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and temporal changes in proximal bone levels.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of publications in English and German was performed using the electronic bibliographic database MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Google. Hand searches were conducted of the bibliographies of related journals and systematic reviews. The authors performed evaluations of articles independently, as well as data extraction and quality assessment. Data were submitted the weighted least-squared analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen (487 initially identified) papers met inclusion criteria. A number of 4,804 implants were initially placed, of which 74 failed, with a majority of failures (74%) within the first 12 months. A total of 1,201 prostheses were incorporated within 48 hours after the surgery. The major prosthetic complication was the fracture of the all-acrylic FDP. The mean cumulative SR/SR ± (standard deviation) (36 months) of implants and prostheses were 99.0 ± 1.0% and 99.9 ± 0.3%, respectively. The averaged bone loss was 1.3 ± 0.4 mm (36 months). No statistically significant differences were found in outcome measures, when comparing maxillary versus mandibular arches and axially versus tilted placed implants.
CONCLUSION
The available data provide promising short-term results for the all-on-four treatment approach; however, current evidence is limited by the quality of available studies and the paucity of data on long-term clinical outcomes of 5 years or greater. In terms of an evidence-based dentistry, the authors recommend further studies designed as randomized controlled clinical trials and reported according to the CONSORT statement.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture Design; Humans; Mandible; Maxilla; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 23560986
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12068 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Nov 2023Standard-diameter dental implants are not always applicable because of anatomic limitations of the residual ridge. Thus, mini-implants have been increasingly used and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Standard-diameter dental implants are not always applicable because of anatomic limitations of the residual ridge. Thus, mini-implants have been increasingly used and offer an alternative. However, data regarding prosthetic complications, maintenance factors, and clinical outcomes are limited.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare prosthetic complications and maintenance events and clinical outcomes in residual ridges rehabilitated with mandibular implant overdentures (IODs) by using standard implants or mini-implants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Nine electronic databases were searched. Quantitative analyses to measure the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were applied. Those methods were used to assess prosthetic complications and maintenance events (abutment adjustments, replacement of retentive element, occlusal adjustment, and overdenture fracture) and clinical outcomes related to postoperative pain, probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), marginal bone loss (MBL), and implant survival rate.
RESULTS
Altogether, 7 publications were selected. Mini-implants presented reduced abutment adjustments (RR 0.23 [0.07, 0.73], P=.01), replacement of retentive element (RR 0.41 [0.31, 0.54], P<.001), occlusal adjustment (RR 0.53 [0.31, 0.91], P=.02), and overdenture fracture (RR 0.46 [0.23, 0.94], P=.03) compared with standard implants. Additionally, mini-implants presented lower values for PI at 6 months (SMD -0.27 [-0.47, -0.08], P=.006) and 12 months (SMD -0.25 [-0.46, -0.05], P=.01). No additional tangible differences were noted.
CONCLUSIONS
Mini-implants might be an alternative choice based on the number of prosthetic complications and maintenance events. This was also confirmed by the comparable clinical data between standard implants and mini-implants.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Denture, Overlay; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Alveolar Bone Loss; Mandible
PubMed: 35120735
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.010 -
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice Sep 2023Dental implants are considered an ideal treatment for a missing single tooth. Immediate loading of implants can hasten the procedure, providing comfort to the patients.... (Review)
Review
Dental implants are considered an ideal treatment for a missing single tooth. Immediate loading of implants can hasten the procedure, providing comfort to the patients. Recently, immediate loading of implants has gained much importance as it helps hasten the procedure and provides more comfort to patients. A previous systematic review published 5 years ago compared the success rates between immediate and conventional loading. There are several factors that influence the success rate of implants that were not discussed in detail in the previous review. Hence, the present systematic review is done to report differences in the outcomes from single implant restorations of missing teeth in the posterior region in patients who were subjected to immediate loading and conventional loading. A follow up for 1 year was done. Electronic databases of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for publications in the English Language during May 2021. The search results yielded 306 articles, out of which 225 were excluded based on title and abstract screening. Screening of the remaining 81 full text articles yielded 14 original research articles that satisfied the predefined inclusion criteria. Meta analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data. The overall success rate of the immediate loading of a single implant is 94.31%. Implants in the maxillary region had a higher survival rate than those in the mandibular region. The age range between 18 and 80 years showed good prognosis and outcomes in older individuals. Good oral hygiene was emphasized for all patients to prevent any secondary conditions or delays in healing.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Anodontia; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 37794532
DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_884_22 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2018To assess studies on edentulous patients rehabilitated using mandibular implant-supported profile prostheses and analyze the impact of different numbers of implants used... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To assess studies on edentulous patients rehabilitated using mandibular implant-supported profile prostheses and analyze the impact of different numbers of implants used on the implant survival rate, peri-implant bone loss, and prosthesis survival rate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement and was registered on PROSPERO. The PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched for articles published before July 18, 2016. The study attempted to answer the following PICO question: In edentulous patients, do full-arch fixed prostheses supported by three implants have a satisfactory implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and prosthesis survival rate compared with those supported by different numbers of implants? Evidence levels of each study were evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM); methodologic quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Descriptive statistics were performed when applicable. Implant survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and marginal bone loss was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn's, and Mann-Whitney tests.
RESULTS
This analysis included 21 published studies of 4,712 implants and 1,245 mandibular implant-supported profile prostheses in 1,245 patients. The patients were grouped by the number of implants used: group 1 (three implants) had an implant survival rate of 90%; group 2 (four implants) had a rate of 95%; and group 3 (five implants) had the lowest rate, 74%. Groups 1 and 3 had the lowest first-year bone losses (median: 0.73 and 0.70 mm, respectively), and were significantly different from group 2 (median: 1.31 mm; P < .001).
CONCLUSION
Despite the limitations in the studies with low levels of evidence and the methodology of MeSH term research, it was concluded that the implant survival rate and first-year bone loss of full-arch fixed prostheses supported by three implants were satisfactory. However, the prosthesis survival rate was inferior to that of other groups, which suggests a longer follow-up of these rehabilitations.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 30024995
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6243 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Oct 2023The aim of this systematic review was to compare treatment outcomes in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review was to compare treatment outcomes in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between narrow-diameter implants and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) for mandibular implant overdentures (MIOs).
METHODS
This study was based on the methodology adapted as per Cochrane. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for pertinent studies published by July 22, 2022. Outcome parameters included in this meta-analysis were implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, visual analogue scale score for patient satisfaction, and value of oral health impact profile.
RESULTS
A total of 782 non-duplicate articles and 83 clinical study registrations were identified from database and hand searches, of which 26 were eligible for full-text searches. Finally, 12 publications reporting on 8 independent studies were included in this review. In the meta-analysis, implant survival rate and marginal bone loss did not significantly differ between narrow-diameter implants and RDIs. Regarding RDIs, narrow-diameter implants were associated with significantly better outcomes in general patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life than RDIs for mandibular overdentures.
CONCLUSIONS
Narrow-diameter implants have competitive treatment outcomes compared to RDIs in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and PROMs. [Correction added on July 21, 2023, after first online publication: The abbreviation RDIs was changed to PROMs in the preceding sentence.] Thus, narrow-diameter implants might be an alternative treatment option for MIOs in situations with limited alveolar bone volume.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Quality of Life; Denture, Overlay; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Treatment Outcome; Mandible; Alveolar Bone Loss
PubMed: 37365991
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13726 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Nov 2023Patients with vascularized bone flaps from the fibula have reduced bone height, in which case a higher prosthetic abutment is needed for their implant-supported... (Review)
Review
Predictability of single versus double-barrel vascularized fibula flaps and dental implants in mandibular reconstructions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Patients with vascularized bone flaps from the fibula have reduced bone height, in which case a higher prosthetic abutment is needed for their implant-supported prosthesis. Although the double-flap technique seems promising, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prospective studies are lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the grafted areas of single barrel fibular flaps (SBFF) and double-barrel fibular flaps (DBFF) by considering failure rates, dental implant complications, and bone union at the osteotomy sites.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) question, and the National Health and Medical Research Council scales. The event rate of complications and failures was calculated with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%.
RESULTS
A total of 13 prospective studies with 441 participants and 330 graft sites were identified. A total of 235 participants had SBFF with 445 implants, and 95 had DBFF with 164 implants. The overall combined graft failure rates were 4.2% for SBFF and 3.2% for DBFF. The complication rate was 10% for SBFF and 1.9% for DBFF. Implant failure was at 4.7% in the SBFF group and 3.4% in the DBFF group.
CONCLUSIONS
Complication rates and implant failures were similar for SBFF and DBFF. Therefore, for long-term oral rehabilitation, both SBFF and DBFF are suitable procedures for mandibular reconstruction.
PubMed: 37978003
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.10.007 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Mar 2023Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth is a complication that has been reported in clinical practice. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth is a complication that has been reported in clinical practice. However, the prevalence of the condition is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the proportion of reported proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology criteria and was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) platform (CRD42021225138). The electronic search was conducted by using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to September 2020. The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was "Is there a correlation of the proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and the adjacent natural tooth?" A single-arm meta-analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the cumulative prevalence of survival and complication rates.
RESULTS
This review included 10 studies, half of which presented proximal contact loss rates higher than 50%. In the general analysis, the open proximal contact showed a cumulative proportion of 41% (confidence interval: 30% to 53%; heterogeneity: I=98%; t=0.578; P<.01). From the subanalysis, the mesial contact (47%; confidence interval: 32% to 62%; heterogeneity: I= 96%; t=0.657; P<.01) and the mandibular arch (41%; confidence interval: 30% to 52%; heterogeneity: I=92%; t=0.302; P<.01) were found to have higher prevalence.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of proximal contact loss was high, occurring more frequently with the mesial contact and in the mandibular arch. Significant differences were not found in relation to sex or between the posterior and anterior regions.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Prevalence; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Mouth, Edentulous; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 34294422
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.025 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Dec 2023Adequate muscle activity is important for the success of oral rehabilitation: it maintains the integrity of the stomatognathic system and is responsible for chewing... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Adequate muscle activity is important for the success of oral rehabilitation: it maintains the integrity of the stomatognathic system and is responsible for chewing movements needed to break, crush and grind food.
OBJECTIVE
To compare muscle activity using electromyography (EMG) while clenching or chewing soft and/or hard foods among individuals with natural dentition (ND) and edentulous patients rehabilitated with dental prostheses.
METHODS
This review was conducted until March, 2023, and the research question was "Is the muscle activity of edentulous patients rehabilitated with dental prostheses similar to that of dentate individuals?" A search strategy was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Lilacs, Embase and manual journal searches.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the analysis. Most of them reported that individuals with ND had significant higher muscle activity (clenching or chewing) than complete dentures (CD) users. However, no difference was observed between patients with full mouth implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (ISFDP) and ND. Additionally, two studies compared patients with mandibular ISFDP with maxillary CD and individuals with ND and found no differences; however, one study concluded that patients with ISFDP with CD (maxillary or mandibular) had lower muscle activity than individuals with ND. Only one study reported a higher muscle activity in patients with full-mouth ISFDP than in individuals with ND.
CONCLUSIONS
Bimaxillary CD users had lower muscle activity than individuals with ND. During rehabilitation, the muscle activity of patients with full-mouth ISFDP and mandibular ISFDP with maxillary CD is similar to individuals with ND.
Topics: Humans; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Mouth, Edentulous; Denture, Complete; Mastication; Muscles; Dental Implants; Denture, Overlay
PubMed: 37605296
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13564 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Oct 2023To investigate the survival rate in implants placement in irradiated and non-irradiated bone in patients undergoing head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. We focused on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To investigate the survival rate in implants placement in irradiated and non-irradiated bone in patients undergoing head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. We focused on the consequences of the main complications, such as osteoradionecrosis and peri-implantitis.
METHODS
An electronic search conducted by PRISMA protocol was performed. Full texts were carefully assessed, and data were assimilated into a tabular form for discussion and consensus among the expert panel. The quality assessment and the risk of bias are verified by Joanna Briggs Institute checklist (JBI) and The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool.
RESULTS
A total of 452 records were identified in the based on our PICOs strategy and after screening, 19 articles were included in the descriptive analysis of the review. Totaling 473 implants placed in irradiated and non-irradiated bone, and 31.6% of the patients were over 60 years of age. 57.9%) performed implant placement in a period of 12 months or more after the ending of radiotherapy. Only 5 studies had a follow-up period longer than 5 years after implant placement, of which three were used for the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis of 5-year survival rate, analysis of implants in irradiated bone was assessed; a random effect model was used and a weighted proportion (PP) of 93.13% (95% CI: 87.20-99.06; p < 0.001), and in the 5-year survival rate, analysis of implants in non-irradiated bone was analysed; a fixed effect model was used and a weighted proportion (PP) of 98.52% survival (95% CI: 97.56-99.48, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Survival rates of implants placed in irradiated bone are clinically satisfactory after a follow-up of 5 years, with a fewer percentage than in implants placed in non-irradiated bone after metanalyses performed.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Bone-Anchored Prosthesis; Head and Neck Neoplasms
PubMed: 37851170
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08088-5