-
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2021This systematic review aimed to compare different attachment systems used in mandibular implant supported overdentures by assessing outcomes such as prosthodontic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review aimed to compare different attachment systems used in mandibular implant supported overdentures by assessing outcomes such as prosthodontic maintenance and complication, peri implant tissue changes, retention, and patient satisfaction for optimum selection of attachment system.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
This systematic review conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic electronic literature search was conducted through PubMed, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central), and Science direct. A hand search was also performed for individual journals and reference lists of selected studies. Randomized controlled clinical trials and crossover clinical trials from 2010 to 2020 with follow up of more than 1 year were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for assessing the risk of bias of included studies.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
The statistical meta analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 5.4. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboation, 2020.
RESULTS
Six studies that met the inclusion criteria possess the low risk of bias with follow up of more than 1 year were included in this systematic review. Out of four outcomes, meta analysis was performed for prosthodontic maintenance and peri implant tissue changes. Due to the limited availability of data, retention and patient satisfaction were reviewed systematically without meta analysis. The result of meta analysis for ball versus magnet attachment showed statistically significant differences in prosthodontic complications and maintenance, and ball attachment reported fewer complications than the locator attachment (risk ratio [RR] =0.55, confidence interval [CI] =95%, P = 0.03). Peri implant tissue changes were analyzed in the included studies as probing depth and marginal bone loss. The result of meta analysis for probing depth showed no statistically significant difference between bar versus telescopic type of attachment (RR = 0.20, CI = 95%, P = 0.74). The meta analysis results for marginal bone loss showed no statistically significant difference between bar versus telescopic type of attachment (mean difference = 0.35, CI = 95%, P = 0.10).
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from the current review that bar attachment provided the most superior retention. The telescopic attachment system not only showed the most favorable patient's satisfaction but also reported the least peri implant mucosal changes. The ball attachment system is a favorable choice for limited inter arch space and parallel implant placement.
Topics: Cross-Over Studies; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 34810359
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_158_21 -
Journal of Dental Research Aug 2016This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the survival rate of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the survival rate of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types associated with the main clinical outcomes. Two reviewers searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles published between 1983 through April 2015, conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. Clinical studies meeting the following criteria were included: 1) studies related to resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays; 2) prospective, retrospective, or randomized controlled trials conducted in humans; 3) studies with a dropout rate of less than 30%; and 4) studies with a follow-up longer than 5 y. Of 1,389 articles, 14 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-regression indicated that the type of ceramic material (feldspathic porcelain vs. glass-ceramic), study design (retrospective vs. prospective), follow-up time (5 vs. 10 y), and study setting (university vs. private clinic) did not affect the survival rate. Estimated survival rates for glass-ceramics and feldspathic porcelain were between 92% and 95% at 5 y (n = 5,811 restorations) and were 91% at 10 y (n = 2,154 restorations). Failures were related to fractures/chipping (4%), followed by endodontic complications (3%), secondary caries (1%), debonding (1%), and severe marginal staining (0%). Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 0.19 (0.04 to 0.96) and 0.54 (0.17 to 1.69) for pulp vitality and type of tooth involved (premolars vs. molars), respectively. Ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays showed high survival rates at 5 y and 10 y, and fractures were the most frequent cause of failure.
Topics: Ceramics; Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Inlays
PubMed: 27287305
DOI: 10.1177/0022034516652848 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Feb 2016The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw-retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3- and 5-year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.
RESULTS
After title, abstract, and full-text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5-year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Implant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high-quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Overlay; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous
PubMed: 25664612
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12531 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2018Several studies reported better outcomes when restoring edentulous mandible with unsplinted IODs compared to CCDs; however, it is not clear if these outcomes remain when... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Several studies reported better outcomes when restoring edentulous mandible with unsplinted IODs compared to CCDs; however, it is not clear if these outcomes remain when the full literature is considered. The aim of this systematic review is to compare conventional complete dentures (CCDs) to unsplinted implant-retained overdentures (IODs) with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life.
STUDY SELECTION
The main question addressed was: How do CCDs compare to unsplinted IODs with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life? Three databases were electronically searched to identify articles comparing CCD to unsplinted IOD. Twenty-six articles were selected and reviewed in full. Of these selected articles, twenty-five compared CCDs restoring function in both arches to a maxillary CCD opposing a mandibular IOD retained by two unsplinted implants. Only one articles compared a maxillary CCDs to a maxillary IOD.
RESULTS
Outcome measures varied among the studies, including the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), visual analogue scales (VAS), and masticatory performance tests. Overall, IODs were associated with significantly better patient's masticatory performance and quality of life as indicated by Oral Health as Related to Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Mandibular unsplinted IODs were more likely than CCDs to be associated with improved OHRQoL for edentulous patients and were associated with significantly higher ratings of overall satisfaction, comfort, stability, ability to speak and ability to chew.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of this systematic review indicate the superiority of IODs retained by two unsplinted mandibular implants when compared to CCDs with regards to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Mastication; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 28666845
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.06.004 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2022Prosthetic rehabilitation, especially with removable complete dentures (CDs), can contribute to speech problems, although the prevalence of the problem is unclear. (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Prosthetic rehabilitation, especially with removable complete dentures (CDs), can contribute to speech problems, although the prevalence of the problem is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the influence of implant-supported fixed complete dentures (FCDs), implant-supported overdentures, and removable CDs on speech articulation disorders in patients with at least 1 completely edentulous jaw.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020182705). The PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through April 2020 to identify clinical trials comparing maxillary and/or mandibular implant-supported dentures with removable CD use in terms of speech articulation in participants with at least 1 completely edentulous jaw. The risk of bias of selected studies was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools, and the quality of evidence was tested by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Initially, 2586 articles were identified, and their titles and abstracts were read. Sixteen articles were read in full, and 8 studies (4 paired clinical trials and 4 cross-sectional studies) were included in this review. In total, 290 prosthesis users aged 29 to 90 years, approximately 44 of whom had hearing difficulties, were included. Four studies had a low risk of bias, and 4 studies had a high risk of bias. Distortions of the /s/ phoneme were observed more often in the first 6 months of maxillary FCD use than with removable CD use. Speech articulation did not differ between mandibular FCD and removable CD users. The quality of evidence for speech articulation disorders was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the low quality of evidence on speech articulation disorders, further research on speech articulation disorders in prosthesis wearers is needed.
Topics: Humans; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Speech; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Implants; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Jaw, Edentulous; Articulation Disorders; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 33865562
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.006 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Aug 2018Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems have unique advantages and disadvantages. The aim of the present systematic review was to determine the influence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems have unique advantages and disadvantages. The aim of the present systematic review was to determine the influence of splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems on the marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published up to October 2017, using the following search terms: "overdenture AND attachment OR overdenture AND bar OR overdenture splinted." The PICO question "Do splinted overdenture attachment systems promote better clinical results in comparison to unsplinted systems?" was evaluated. Eligible studies included randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective studies with at least 10 participants and a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and studies published in English that compared splinted and unsplinted attachment systems within the same study. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was considered for all outcomes analysed. After completion of the different steps in the article selection process, nine articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 984 implants were placed in 380 patients (mean age: 62.8 years). The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between splinted and unsplinted attachment systems with regard to marginal bone loss (P = .39; MD: -0.11; 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.14), complications (P = .31; RR: 1.26; CI: 0.80-1.99) and implant survival rate (P = .14; RR: 0.37% CI: 0.10-1.36). In addition, splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems achieved similar results with regard to marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Design; Denture Precision Attachment; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Osseointegration; Periodontal Attachment Loss
PubMed: 29761853
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12651 -
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 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2016The aim of this systematic review is to report on the current knowledge regarding patient satisfaction as a primary outcome for maxillary complete denture therapy. We... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review is to report on the current knowledge regarding patient satisfaction as a primary outcome for maxillary complete denture therapy. We asked, "For the maxillary edentulous patient treated using maxillary dentures, what are the patient-based outcomes regarding quality of life and treatment satisfaction."
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search of publications up to March 2014 was established using four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. To meet the ultimate goal of establishing clinical guidelines based on available information, prospective comparative studies, cohort prospective studies, and retrospective studies on more than 10 subjects were included. The electronic search identified 4,530 articles that were evaluated at the title, abstract, and article level to include 31 articles of interest. The patient-based outcomes and satisfaction data included were examined and reported.
RESULTS
The studies included 5,485 participants. Of these, 2,685 were identified as wearing maxillary complete dentures. Reported mean ages ranged from 59.7 to 73.6 years. A systematic review indicated that the provision of new maxillary complete dentures for edentulous patients results in improved self-reported satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life. The included reports, while providing evidence that complete denture satisfaction of participants and new dentures improve self-reported outcomes, did not include variables that influence these positive outcomes.
CONCLUSION
A broad range of evidence supports the use of complete dentures for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. When considering treatment of the edentulous maxilla, the expectations of patients for esthetic and phonetic (social) rehabilitation are high and can be met using maxillary complete dentures as the mode of prosthetic rehabilitation. Patients dissatisfied with new complete dentures may be referred for dental implant therapies involving fixed or removable prostheses.
Topics: Denture Retention; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Maxilla; Mouth, Edentulous; Oral Health; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 27228248
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.16suppl.g5.1 -
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Sep 2014The goal of implant treatment is the formation of a direct bone-implant interface contact. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The goal of implant treatment is the formation of a direct bone-implant interface contact.
PURPOSE
This study aimed to evaluate the possibilities of immediate loading treatment for edentulous patients rehabilitated with mandibular and maxillary overdentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A literature review using the PubMed and BIREME databases between the periods of 1977 and 2011 was performed.
RESULTS
From an initial yield of 218 titles, 78 articles were selected for text analysis, finally resulting in 23 studies (16 prospective, 6 prospective randomized, and 1 prospective multicenter) that met the inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSION
The immediate loading protocol through which the implants are subjected to occlusal function immediately after their placement was introduced to overcome this limitation.
Topics: Bone-Implant Interface; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Jaw, Edentulous; Osseointegration; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 23828272
DOI: 10.1007/s10006-013-0421-6 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Dec 2017The single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) has been proposed as an alternative for edentulous patients who are poorly adapted to their dentures due to low... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
The single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) has been proposed as an alternative for edentulous patients who are poorly adapted to their dentures due to low retention and stability of the conventional mandibular complete denture (CD). However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of SIMO, which can be measured by examining patient perception of treatment effects. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the comparative results of CD and SIMO treatments using patient-reported outcome measures. A literature search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central databases. The search included studies published up to July 2017. The focus question was: 'Do single-implant mandibular overdentures improve patient-reported outcomes compared to conventional complete dentures in edentulous patients?' Eligible studies were randomised clinical trials (RCT) and prospective studies. After initial screening for eligibility and full-text analysis, 11 studies were included for data extraction and quality assessment (five parallel-group RCTs, two crossover RCTs and four prospective studies). All studies reported marked improvement in satisfaction with the dentures and quality of life measures after SIMO treatment, irrespective of variations in implant treatment protocols and retention systems. Methodological considerations revealed a lack of evidence from RCTs on the comparative effectiveness of the two treatment strategies. Hence, although available evidence suggests considerable improvement in patient-reported outcomes following the insertion of a single implant to retain a mandibular denture, further well-designed comparative studies between SIMO and CD are required to improve the level of evidence and to support the indication of SIMO treatment in routine practice.
Topics: Denture, Complete, Lower; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Oral Health; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28805255
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12550