-
The International Journal of... 2019To investigate the influence of splinted vs unsplinted designs for a maxillary overdenture supported by four implants in terms of the outcome measures implant survival,...
PURPOSE
To investigate the influence of splinted vs unsplinted designs for a maxillary overdenture supported by four implants in terms of the outcome measures implant survival, overdenture longevity, and patient satisfaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search, complemented by a handsearch, was carried out in the Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Web of Science databases from 2000 to 2018. The PRISMA statement and a PICO approach were adopted. Free-text words were used in the strategy search, including "4-implant-retained overdenture," "4-implant-supported overdenture," "implant-supported overdenture," "implant-retained overdenture," "maxillary overdenture," "splinted design," "un-splinted design," and their combinations. All selected articles provided at least a 1-year follow-up, 10 fully edentulous patients, and at least one of the following clinical outcomes: survival rate of implants, survival rate of overdentures, and/or patient satisfaction scores. Nonparametric Fisher test for unpaired data was adopted in order to analyze data deriving from the survival rates of implants and overdentures.
RESULTS
The initial electronic search produced a total of 2,922 articles. After applying the inclusion criteria, 14 articles were included. The mean follow-up time after implant placement ranged from 1 to 10 years. No statistical difference was detected in the survival rate of implants between the splinted implant group and the unsplinted implant group (P = .1). Only 4 included studies reported an overdenture survival rate of lower than 95%. It is interesting to note that among these 4 studies, 3 employed four splinted implants with a bar anchorage; however, no statistical difference was detected in the survival rate of overdentures between the splinted and unsplinted groups (P = .47). High scores were reported by all studies investigating patient satisfaction.
CONCLUSION
Within the limits of this systematic review, it can be concluded that the survival rates of implants and overdentures and patient satisfaction with a maxillary overdenture supported by four implants were not influenced by the overdenture design, and no statistical difference was detected between the splinted and unsplinted groups.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Maxilla
PubMed: 31664267
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6333 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Apr 2024The aim was to systematically review clinical studies that investigated the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in reducing oral yeasts growth (OYG) in... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to systematically review clinical studies that investigated the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in reducing oral yeasts growth (OYG) in individuals wearing implant overdentures (IO).
METHODS
The focused question was "Is aPDT effective in reducing OYG in patients wearing IO?" Literature search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Indexed databases were searched without time and language restrictions up to and including January 2024. Clinical studies were included; and letters to the Editor, case-reports/case-series, perspectives/commentaries, in-vitro/ex-vivo studies, studies on animal models and expert opinions were excluded. The risk of bias was also assessed.
RESULTS
Two clinical studies were included and processed for data extraction. The study population comprised of 100 (mean age: 58.5 years) and 53 (mean age: 58.5 years) individuals. The numbers of males and females included in these studies ranged between 33 and 35 males and 18-67 females, respectively. In both studies, follow-up evaluations were performed after 60 days. In both studies, aPDT was performed using a 660 nm diode laser at a power of 100 mW and using methylene-blue as photosensitizer. Results from both studies showed that aPDT is effective in significantly reducing oral yeasts CFU/ml and improvement of OHRQoL of individuals using IO.
CONCLUSION
The aPDT is useful in reducing OYG on IO; however, further well-designed and power-adjusted studies are needed in this area of research.
Topics: Photochemotherapy; Humans; Photosensitizing Agents; Denture, Overlay; Methylene Blue; Lasers, Semiconductor; Yeasts; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38548040
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.104050 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2016To evaluate patient-related outcomes in restoring the edentulous maxilla with an implant overdenture.
PURPOSE
To evaluate patient-related outcomes in restoring the edentulous maxilla with an implant overdenture.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review of the literature was conducted. Publications reporting patient-based outcomes with concomitant data on implant and/or prosthetic success were selected using predetermined inclusion criteria that were agreed upon by the two reviewers.
RESULTS
Twenty-three publications related to 20 study cohorts were identified to meet the inclusion criteria for maxillary implant overdentures: two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 13 prospective case series including two crossover trials, and five retrospective studies.
CONCLUSION
An implant overdenture offers a stabilized removable solution for the edentulous maxilla, which provides increased patient satisfaction and quality of life improvement. A palateless design supported by four to six implants with a wide anteroposterior span has been successfully applied in some investigations. A higher failure rate was experienced with machined implants, particularly with short implants (length < 10 mm). Although both splinted and solitary anchorage systems are advocated, maintenance is higher for solitary attachments and inflammation is increased beneath the bars. Long-term maintenance care is essential for all designs. Well-designed RCTs with larger sample cohorts with longer follow-up periods are required to amplify patient- and clinician-based outcomes.
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Maxilla; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 27228249
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.16suppl.g5.2 -
Quintessence International (Berlin,... Jun 2024This systematic review compares the impact of ball and locator attachments on marginal bone loss in implant-retained overdentures in completely edentulous patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review compares the impact of ball and locator attachments on marginal bone loss in implant-retained overdentures in completely edentulous patients.
METHOD AND MATERIALS
Following PRISMA guidelines, health science librarians completed literature searches from inception to 17 March 2023 in seven databases. There were 15,686 items exported to EndNote from Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE-ALL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Hand-searching added four more articles. After deduplication, 6,756 items were screened for eligibility. Twenty-nine studies were assessed by full text, of which ten studies, involving 424 subjects, were included in the review. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A meta-analysis was performed to synthesize and analyze the collective data from the selected studies.
RESULTS
The included studies used diverse methodologies, implant systems, and loading protocols. Most studies reported no significant difference in marginal bone loss between ball and locator attachments. The meta-analysis revealed high heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
The results of this systematic review suggest that ball and locator attachments exhibit similar performance in terms of marginal bone loss in implant-retained overdentures. However, the limited number, risk of bias, and heterogeneity of studies highlight the need for standardized research designs and larger sample sizes in future investigations to draw more definitive conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Denture, Overlay; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Alveolar Bone Loss; Denture Retention
PubMed: 38619260
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.b5213685 -
Quintessence International (Berlin,... 2020To investigate bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla restored with maxillary complete dentures and opposed by mandibular two-implant-supported overdentures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla restored with maxillary complete dentures and opposed by mandibular two-implant-supported overdentures (2-IODs) or complete dentures.
METHOD AND MATERIALS
A systematic search was conducted using the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases for studies investigating bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla with mandibular 2-IODs or complete dentures. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies and risk of bias assessment was conducted according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was performed using statistical software to estimate weighted mean difference in bone loss with 95% confidence interval (CI). The level of significance was defined as P value (< .05).
RESULTS
A total of 2,510 studies were identified through electronic and manual searching. Six studies were selected and compounded for quantitative synthesis of 163 patients. Bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla was greater with 2-IODs than with complete dentures. The total estimate of weighted mean difference between 2-IODs and complete dentures was -1.40 (95% CI -3.12 to 0.31). However, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .11). The data were heterogenous across the studies based on chi-square statistics (χ2 [df = 7] = 52.75, P < .0001; τ2 = 5.53, I2 = 95.21%). In addition, the impact of implant splinting on bone loss was not significant (P > .29). None of the included studies were considered to be at high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of the current systematic review and meta-analysis, the estimate of bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla was greater with 2-IODs than with complete dentures. However, the difference was not statistically significant. A well-designed randomized clinical study needs to be conducted to validate the results of this systematic review.
Topics: Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Maxilla
PubMed: 32696032
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a44928 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry May 2021Evidence provided by implant-supported mandibular overdenture research on different loading protocols is important. However, methodological inconsistency, as well as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Evidence provided by implant-supported mandibular overdenture research on different loading protocols is important. However, methodological inconsistency, as well as inadequate reporting of results, hampers a consistent decision in terms of clinical applicability.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether immediate or early loading protocols can achieve comparable clinical outcomes when compared with a conventional loading protocol in edentulous patients rehabilitated with mandibular overdentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
In accordance with the Participant, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome strategy, prospective clinical studies without restrictions as to language or follow-up period were included. The Cochrane collaboration and ROBINS-I tools were used for quality assessment and risk-of-bias evaluation. The follow-up for the different outcomes ranged from 3 to 168 months, with the focus on implant success and survival rates, marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, probing depth, plaque index, and the implant stability quotient. Statistical analyses in which standard mean differences were applied with a 95% confidence interval when continuous data were included were performed. For dichotomous data, risk difference was adopted.
RESULTS
The search strategy resulted in 14 234 references. Twenty-three studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences for plaque index at 12 months (standard mean difference=0.284 [0.022, 0.545], P=.033, I=35%), probing depth at 36 months (standard mean difference=0.460 [0.098, 0.823], P=.013, I=0%), and on pooled results for plaque index (standard mean difference=0.157 [0.031, 0.284], P=.015, I=18%) in which the conventional loading protocol presented lower indices than those of immediate loading protocol or early loading protocol. Implant stability quotient presented a statistically significant difference only at 3 months (standard mean difference=0.602 [0.309, 0.895], P<.001, I=0%) with higher values for the conventional loading protocol. For the other parameters, statistically significant differences (P>.05) were not found.
CONCLUSIONS
Immediate loading protocol or early loading protocolfor mandibular overdentures has been determined to be a well-established treatment and worthy of consideration in clinical practice.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32684353
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.04.017 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2019The number of implants needed to support a maxillary overdenture is still a controversial issue. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the number of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The number of implants needed to support a maxillary overdenture is still a controversial issue. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture in order to obtain optimal treatment outcomes in terms of implant survival, overdenture longevity and patient satisfaction.
STUDY SELECTION
Pubmed and EMBASE databes were systematically searched and complemented by hand searching from 2000 to 2017. The Prisma statement and a PICOS approach were adopted. All selected articles provided at least two-year follow-up and 10 totally edentulous patients. Survival rate of implants and overdentures were statistically analyzed according to number of implants and according to splitting technique, employing non-parametric Fisher Test for unpaired data. For the pooled analysis of implant failures, the odds ratio between group of 4 splinted implants and group of more than 4 splinted was calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 28 articles were included. Data analysis of the included studies showed that the survival rate of implants appeared higher in ≥ 4 implants group, whereas the high survival rate of overdentures and patient satisfaction were not significantly influenced by the number of implants.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of our analysis indicate that overall the most frequent tendency is to place at least four implants, splinted or unsplinted, in order to ensure a higher survival rate of implants. However, the relationship between overdenture survival, the patient's quality of life, and the number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture has yet to be clarified.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Maxilla; Patient Satisfaction; PubMed; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30269880
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.08.006 -
International Journal of Oral and... May 2018The aim of this study was to compare implant failure and radiographic bone level changes with different loading protocols for unsplinted two-implant-supported mandibular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this study was to compare implant failure and radiographic bone level changes with different loading protocols for unsplinted two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures. An electronic search of two databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library) was performed, without language restriction, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate or early versus conventional dental implant loading protocols for unsplinted two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The Cochrane tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs were identified, seven of which were included; one trial was excluded because related outcomes were not measured. Four of the seven studies were considered to have a high risk of bias and three an unclear risk. Meta-analysis revealed no difference between immediate versus conventional or early versus conventional implant loading protocols regarding implant failure (risk difference (RD) -0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.10; RD 0.09, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.20) or marginal bone loss (mean difference (MD) 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.28; MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02) for implants supporting mandibular overdentures. These findings should be interpreted with great caution given the serious numerical limitations of the studies included.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Mandible
PubMed: 29146396
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.10.018 -
Quintessence International (Berlin,... 2020To evaluate the influence of implant splinting on peri-implant marginal bone level and implant failures in completely edentulous patients who have been rehabilitated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the influence of implant splinting on peri-implant marginal bone level and implant failures in completely edentulous patients who have been rehabilitated with mandibular implant overdentures.
METHOD AND MATERIALS
A literature search of electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) was performed, with the last search conducted in July 2019. Randomized controlled trials with at least a 12-month follow-up period were selected. The review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two comparisons were included in the meta-analysis: (1) Two-implant supported ball versus two-implant supported bar mandibular overdenture; (2): Two- versus four-implant supported bar mandibular overdenture.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in a quality assessment and meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed a nonsignificant difference in marginal bone level (I2 = 0%; P = 1; mean difference = 0.00; 95% CI -0.37 to 0.37) and implant failures (P = .24; risk ratio = 6.07; 95% CI 0.30 to 121.33) when two-implant ball overdentures were compared to two-implant bar overdentures. Similarly, there was no significant difference in marginal bone level (I2 = 59%; P = .59; mean difference = -0.16; 95% CI -0.73 to 0.41) or implant failures (I2 = 0%; P = .36; risk ratio = 2.03; 95% CI 0.45 to 9.16) when two- versus four-implant bar overdentures were compared.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the meta-analysis, there is no influence of implant splinting on peri-implant marginal bone level and implant failures for completely edentulous patients rehabilitated with mandibular implant overdentures. However, this result should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of analyzed studies, most of them considered at unclear risk of bias. Well-designed randomized controlled trials with follow-up periods of at least 5 years are highly recommended to establish evidence with regard to the influence of implant splinting on mandibular overdentures.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Mouth, Edentulous; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32080685
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a44144 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Implant overdentures are one of the most common treatment options used to rehabilitate edentulous patients. Attachment systems are used to anchor the overdentures to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Implant overdentures are one of the most common treatment options used to rehabilitate edentulous patients. Attachment systems are used to anchor the overdentures to implants. The plethora of attachment systems available dictates a need for clinicians to understand their prosthodontic and patient-related outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare different attachment systems for maxillary and mandibular implant overdentures by assessing prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient preference, patient satisfaction/quality of life and costs.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 January 2018); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 24 January 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 January 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials on 24 January 2018. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over trials on maxillary or mandibular implant overdentures with different attachment systems with at least 1 year follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors extracted data independently and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. Several corresponding authors were subsequently contacted to obtain missing information. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine the outcomes with risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence and create 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six RCTs with a total of 294 mandibular overdentures (including one cross-over trial). No trials on maxillary overdentures were eligible. Due to the poor reporting of the outcomes across the included trials, only limited analyses between mandibular overdenture attachment systems were possible.Comparing ball and bar attachments, upon pooling the data regarding short-term prosthodontic success, we identified substantial heterogeneity (I = 97%) with inconsistency in the direction of effect, which was unexplained by clinical or methodological differences between the studies, and accordingly we did not perform meta-analyses for this outcome. Short-term re-treatment (repair of attachment system) was higher with ball attachments (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.68 to 5.75; 130 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence), and there was no difference between both attachment systems in short-term re-treatment (replacement of attachment system) (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.71; 130 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in short-term prosthodontic success when ball attachments are compared with bar attachments.Comparing ball and magnet attachments, there was no difference between them in medium-term prosthodontic success (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or in medium-term re-treatment (repair of attachment system) (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 4.72; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). However, after 5 years, prosthodontic maintenance costs were higher when magnet attachments were used (MD -247.37 EUR, 95% CI -346.32 to -148.42; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in medium-term prosthodontic success when ball attachments are compared with magnet attachments.One trial provided data for ball versus telescopic attachments and reported no difference in prosthodontic maintenance between the two systems in short-term patrix replacement (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 41.96; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), matrix activation (RR 11.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 177.72; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), matrix replacement (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.31; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or in relining of the implant overdenture (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.81 to 6.76; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in short-term prosthodontic maintenance when ball attachments are compared with telescopic attachments.In the only cross-over trial included, patient preference between different attachment systems was assessed after only 3 months and not for the entire trial period of 10 years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For mandibular overdentures, there is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient satisfaction, patient preference or costs. In the short term, there is some evidence that is insufficient to show a difference and where there was no evidence was reported. It was not possible to determine any preferred attachment system for mandibular overdentures.For maxillary overdentures, there is no evidence (with no trials identified) to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient satisfaction, patient preference or costs.Further RCTs on edentulous cohorts must pay attention to trial design specifically using the same number of implants of the same implant system, but with different attachment systems clearly identified in control and test groups. Trials should also determine the longevity of different attachment systems and patient preferences. Trials on the current array of computer-aided designed/computer-assisted manufactured (CAD/CAM) bar attachment systems are encouraged.
Topics: Dental Implantation; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30308116
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008001.pub2