-
Journal of Applied Oral Science :... 2023Currently, there is no consensus on the indications and clinical performance of implant-supported overdentures (IODs) involving computer-aided design and manufacturing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
Currently, there is no consensus on the indications and clinical performance of implant-supported overdentures (IODs) involving computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) bars.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the performance of IODs involving CAD-CAM bars.
METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive search of studies published until May 2023 was conducted in many databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SciELO, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was: "How do IODs retained by bars fabricated by CAD-CAM technology perform in daily clinical practice?" The meta-analysis included clinical studies based on effect size and a two-tailed null test with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, nine reported a 100% implant survival rate for all CAD-CAM milled bars. Complications were reported in two studies with CAD/CAM-milled titanium bars, and one study reported more fractures in soldered gold bars used in maxillary rehabilitation. However, no fractures were observed in IODs retained by PEEK and zirconia bars. According to six studies, biological complications, including peri-implantitis, were minimal in the BioHPP and PEEK bar groups, while no cases were reported in the titanium or zirconia bar groups. CAD-CAM-milled zirconia bars had higher plaque and bleeding indices compared with titanium bars, as evidenced by findings from five studies. All four studies that evaluated Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) scores showed a positive effect of IODs retained by CAD-CAM milled titanium bars on quality of life. Patient satisfaction and acceptance by prosthodontists were significantly high, according to the results of five studies.
CONCLUSION
Overdentures retained with CAD-CAM milled titanium bars show great potential for use in daily clinical practice. Moreover, patient and practitioner satisfaction was very high when this method was used.
Topics: Humans; Denture, Overlay; Quality of Life; Titanium; Computer-Aided Design
PubMed: 37646715
DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2023-0054 -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2021Mini-dental implants (MDIs) have been used to support and retain overdentures, providing patients with a less invasive placement procedure. Although lucrative, the use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Mini-dental implants (MDIs) have been used to support and retain overdentures, providing patients with a less invasive placement procedure. Although lucrative, the use of MDIs to retain a maxillary overdenture is still not an established treatment modality. This systematic review aims to answer the question: Do mini-implant-retained maxillary overdentures provide a satisfactory treatment outcome for complete edentulism?
METHODS
A systematic search for relevant articles was conducted to include articles published until April 2021 in the following electronic databases: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. All empirical studies evaluating the biological, survival, or patient-reported outcomes after placing mini-implant-retained overdentures in maxilla were considered for inclusion. The risk of bias was assessed by utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. Study screening and data extraction were conducted by three reviewers independently.
RESULTS
The electronic search retrieved 1276 titles after omitting duplicates. Twenty articles were considered for full-text review, of which six studies were included in this systematic review. The included studies evaluated a total of 173 participants with a mean age of 66.3 years. The overall mini-implant survival rate was 77.1% (95% CI: 64.7-89.5%) with a mean follow-up time of 1.79 years (range: 6 months to 3 years). Implant survival differed significantly when comparing complete and partial palatal coverage overdentures. Those with complete palatal coverage exhibited less bone loss overall compared to partial coverage overdentures. Participants of all studies reported an increase in the quality of life and in satisfaction after rehabilitation treatment with MDIs.
CONCLUSIONS
The survival rate of mini-implants retaining an overdenture in the maxilla was observed to be lower than the values reported for traditional implants in the literature. Improvements were observed in all aspects in terms of patient satisfaction, quality of life, oromyofunction, and articulation after the treatment.
Topics: Aged; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Maxilla; Mouth, Edentulous; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33924167
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084377 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2021The immediate loading protocol for 2-implant mandibular overdentures has been widely reported. Nevertheless, the clinical effects reported in different articles are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The immediate loading protocol for 2-implant mandibular overdentures has been widely reported. Nevertheless, the clinical effects reported in different articles are quite different.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to compare the clinical effects of immediate and delayed loading of 2-implant mandibular overdentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The review followed the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, CBM, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases were searched electronically for RCTs published before March 25, 2020. Two authors independently conducted literature screening, quality assessment, and data extraction. The outcomes of interest were implant failure rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability quotient (ISQ), periotest value (PTV), and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
A total of 2498 unduplicated records were identified. After full-text analysis, 7 eligible RCTs were included. All studies were followed for at least 12 months, and the meta-analysis was based on this. The meta-analysis showed that the implant failure rate in the immediate group was higher than that in the delayed group, but there was no statistically significant difference (I=0%; n=7; risk difference [RD]=0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.01 to 0.08). The difference of MBL between immediate and delayed loading was not significant (I=88%; n=6; mean difference [MD]=-0.04; 95% CI=-0.16 to 0.24). Because of the limited articles reporting on ISQ, PTV, and patient satisfaction, no quantitative analysis was conducted for these outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the implant failure rate was more likely to favor the delayed group, available evidence indicates no statistical difference in implant failure and marginal bone loss between immediate and delayed loading protocols.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33139056
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.011 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Apr 2020Overdentures can improve the quality of life of elderly patients compared with conventional complete dentures. Different attachment systems can be used to retain these...
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Overdentures can improve the quality of life of elderly patients compared with conventional complete dentures. Different attachment systems can be used to retain these prostheses, but which system results in better function, mechanical performance, and patient comfort is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate randomized clinical trials to compare overdentures supported by either bar and clip or ball and O-ring attachments for retention, masticatory efficiency, bone loss, and patient satisfaction.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted in the PubMed and Web of Science databases. From 163 studies, 16 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the RevMan software Risk of Bias Table (RoB Table), and only the studies with a low or intermediate risk of bias were included in the review.
RESULTS
From the limited number of studies, the attachment type did not affect the masticatory quality of the patients, bone loss marginal to the implants, or the degree of patient satisfaction. However, overdentures with the bar and clip attachment tended to have higher initial retention than the ball and O-ring system.
CONCLUSIONS
Both the bar and clip and ball and O-ring attachment systems presented similar clinical performance regarding mechanical and functional properties and patient satisfaction.
Topics: Aged; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Mandible; Quality of Life
PubMed: 31542217
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.024 -
BMC Oral Health Mar 2021Immediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of immediate and delayed loading protocols on marginal bone loss around implants in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Immediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing demand on immediate aesthetics and function. However, there is still a scarcity of meta-analytical evidence on the efficacy of immediate loading compared to delayed loading in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants between immediate and delayed loading of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies quantitatively comparing the MBL around implants between immediate loading protocol (ILP) and delayed loading protocol (DLP) of unsplinted mandibular overdentures were included. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on December 02, 2020. "Grey" literature was also searched. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the pooled MBL of two different loading protocols of unsplinted mandibular overdentures through weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The subgroup analysis was performed between different attachment types (i.e. Locator attachment vs. ball anchor). The risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Egger's test.
RESULTS
Of 328 records, five RCTs and two cohort studies were included and evaluated, which totally contained 191 participants with 400 implants. The MBL of ILP group showed no significant difference with that of DLP group (WMD 0.04, CI - 0.13 to 0.21, P > .05). The subgroup analysis revealed similar results with Locator attachments or ball anchors (P > .05). Apart from one RCT (20%) with a high risk of bias, four RCTs (80%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Two prospective cohort studies were proved with acceptable quality. Seven included studies have reported 5.03% implant failure rate (10 of 199 implants) in ILP group and 1.00% failure rate (2 of 201 implants) in DLP group in total.
CONCLUSIONS
For unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures, the MBL around implants after ILP seems comparable to that of implants after DLP. Immediate loading may be a promising alternative to delayed loading for the management of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020159124.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible
PubMed: 33731092
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01486-3 -
The International Journal of...To evaluate the current literature and provide clinical recommendations related to the number of implants, implant characteristics, loading protocols, survival rates,...
PURPOSE
To evaluate the current literature and provide clinical recommendations related to the number of implants, implant characteristics, loading protocols, survival rates, biologic and mechanical complications, patient satisfaction, and financial considerations for mandibular implant-supported full-arch prostheses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A PubMed/MEDLINE search for literature published between January 1, 1980 and February 8, 2019, was performed for systematic reviews on this topic. The PICO question was: In mandibular fully edentulous patients treated with implant full-arch prostheses, is there any difference between fixed and removable implant prostheses in terms of implant and prosthesis survival rates? Only systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses were included. The findings varied based on the type of implant full-arch prosthesis.
RESULTS
High survival rates for implants and prostheses have been reported for fixed and removable implant full-arch prostheses in the mandible. Immediate loading procedures present with high survival rates for both fixed and removable prostheses. There are differences in the number of implants, implant characteristics, complications, and financial implications between these two types of prostheses, which clinicians need to account for as part of the treatment planning process.
CONCLUSION
Implant-supported overdentures and implant-supported fixed complete dentures represent clinically successful treatment approaches. In cases where both treatment options are indicated, patient expectations and cost should be the determining factors for selecting a treatment modality.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Mandible; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33571328
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6911 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Feb 2022Clinicians treating overdenture patients need to know if immediate loading and conventional loading results in similar outcomes. This study aimed to perform a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Clinicians treating overdenture patients need to know if immediate loading and conventional loading results in similar outcomes. This study aimed to perform a systematic literature search of studies comparing immediate and conventional loading of mandibular overdentures irrespective of the number of implants and conduct a meta-analysis of implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL). A literature search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Ovoid, Springer, and Google Scholar databases was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate vs conventional loading of mandibular overdentures. The primary outcome was implant failure and the secondary outcome was marginal bine loss (MBL). A descriptive analysis was performed for other outcomes. Thirteen trials were included. Only one trial compared the immediate and delayed loading of single implant-supported overdenture. Seven trials used 2 implants, 1 trial used 3 implants while 4 trials used 4 implants. Meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in implant failure and MBL between immediate and conventional loading of 2- and 4-implant supported overdentures. Descriptive analysis indicated no difference in peri-implant tissue indices, implant stability, and quality of life outcomes between the 2 loading protocols. There may be no difference in implant failure and MBL with immediate loading or conventional loading of 2- and 4-implant supported mandibular overdentures. Literature review indicates that there may be no difference in peri-implant tissue indices, implant stability, and quality of life outcomes between the 2 loading protocols. The overall quality of evidence is moderate. Further, adequately powered RCTs are required to strengthen the evidence.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Mandible; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33206979
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00265 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jul 2022To evaluate the effect of overdenture (OD) attachment type and the number of implants supporting mandibular ODs on peri-implant health. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effect of overdenture (OD) attachment type and the number of implants supporting mandibular ODs on peri-implant health.
STUDY SELECTION
From inception to October 2020, electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) were systematically searched. The outcomes of interest were marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), plaque index, bleeding index, and implant survival rate. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the GeMTC package supported by R. The weighted mean difference and 95% credible interval were estimated.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies with a total of 1166 participants who received 2666 dental implants were included. Except for 4 bar and 4 telescopic, which showed a statistically lower MBL than the 2 locator, all other interventions showed insignificant differences in MBL (P > 0.05). The difference in periodontal probing depth was not statistically significant when comparing the different groups. The pooled implant survival rates of the different interventions ranged from 88.9% to 100%. The rank probability test showed that 4 bar and 4 telescopic had the lowest MBL, 2 magnet and 2 bar had the highest PI, whereas 4 locator showed the least PPD.
CONCLUSION
Except for 4 implants+bar, or telescopic, and 4 locator that, respectively, showed less MBL and PPD compared to some interventions, it seemed that different attachment types and number of implants supporting mandibular ODs have no clear superiority over the other in terms of peri-implant health outcomes.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34588403
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00073 -
Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry May 2024The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the efficacy of mini dental implants... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Retention of Mandibular Complete Overdentures using Mini Dental Implants (Ø < 3 mm) and Standard Diameter Implants (Ø > 3mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
PURPOSE
The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the efficacy of mini dental implants (MDIs) and standard-diameter implants (SDIs) in retaining mandibular overdentures (MO).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The focused question was "Is there a difference in the mechanical stability between MDIs and SDIs in retaining MO?" Indexed databases were searched up to and including November 2023 using different keywords. Boolean operators were used during the search. The literature was searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The PICO characteristics were: patients (P) = individuals with complete mandibular dentures requiring dental implants; Intervention (I) = placement of MDIs under mandibular dentures; Control (C) = placement of SDIs under mandibular dentures; Outcome (O) = comparison of stability between MDIs and SDIs in supporting mandibular dentures. Only RCTs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool.
RESULTS
Five RCTs were included. The numbers of participants ranged between 45 and 120 edentulous individuals wearing complete mandibular dentures. The mean age of patients ranged between 59.5 ± 8.5 and 68.3 ± 8.5 years. The number of MDIs and SDIs ranged between 22 and 152 and 10 and 80 implants, respectively. The follow-up duration ranged between one week and 12 months. Three RCTs reported an improvement in the quality of life (QoL) of all patients after stabilisation of mandibular dentures using MDIs or SDIs. In one RCT, peri-implant soft tissue profiles were comparable between MDIs and SDIs at the 1-year follow-up. The implant survival rate was reported in two RCTs, which were from 89% to 98% and 99% to 100% for MDIs and SDIs, respectively. All RCTs had a low RoB.
CONCLUSION
Mini dental implants represent a viable alternative to traditional standard-diameter implants when seeking optimal retention for mandibular overdentures.
Topics: Denture, Overlay; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Mandible; Denture, Complete, Lower; Dental Prosthesis Design
PubMed: 38713458
DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.b5282167 -
The International Journal of... 2021To assess the clinical outcomes of maxillary overdentures supported by dental implants by conducting a literature review.
PURPOSE
To assess the clinical outcomes of maxillary overdentures supported by dental implants by conducting a literature review.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was undertaken in March 2019. Eligibility criteria included publications reporting cases of implant-supported maxillary overdentures with follow-up information.
RESULTS
A total of 131 publications were included (1,478 overdentures supported by 6,681 implants). The mean number of attachments per overdenture was 3.8 ± 1.2 (range: 1 to 9), and a bar-clip system was used in about half of the cases. The prostheses were followed up for a mean of 47.9 ± 32.8 (range 1: to 240) months. A total of 401 implants (6.0%) failed in 219 patients (14.8%), and 55 prostheses (3.7%) failed at a mean of 40.2 ± 53.2 (6 to 240) months after placement. Most of the failures happened within the first year after placement for both implants (52.1%) and prostheses (41.8%). Patients with fewer implants per prosthesis presented higher prosthesis failure rates than patients with more implants per prosthesis. The cumulative survival rate for dental implants after 19 years was 70.4%, and for implant-supported maxillary overdentures was 79.8%. Presence of palatal coverage and/or metallic structure/reinforcement does not seem to have an influence on failure rate. Of the most commonly used attachment systems, the ball/O-ring and the Ceka were the ones with the highest rates of patients having at least one implant failure.
CONCLUSION
Most of the prosthesis failures were due to loss of implants, and the first year was the most critical period for failures. The number of dental implants placed per patient seemed to have an impact on the occurrence of overdenture failure.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Maxilla; Prosthesis Failure
PubMed: 33625390
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6905