-
BMC Oral Health May 2021Implant-supported overdentures offer enhanced mechanical properties, which lead to better patient satisfaction and survival rates than conventional dentures. However, it... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Implant-supported overdentures offer enhanced mechanical properties, which lead to better patient satisfaction and survival rates than conventional dentures. However, it is unclear whether these satisfaction levels and survival rates depend on the number of implants supporting the overdenture. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to compare maxillary overdentures supported by four or six splinted implants in terms of patient satisfaction, implant survival, overdenture survival, and prosthodontic complications.
METHODS
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), and EMBASE databases were systematically searched and complemented by hand searching from 2000 to 2019, employing a combination of specific keywords. Studies comparing the use of four versus six implants for supporting overdentures with at least one-year of follow-up after prosthesis installation and including ten fully edentulous patients were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was analyzed with Cochrane's RoB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. Implants and prosthesis survival rates were analyzed by random-effects meta-analysis and expressed as risk ratios or risk differences, respectively, and by the non-parametric unpaired Fisher's test.
RESULTS
A total of 15 from 1865 articles were included, and reported follow-up times after implant placement ranged from 1 to 10 years. Irrespective of the number of implants used, high scores were reported by all studies investigating patient satisfaction. Meta-analysis and non-parametric Fisher's test showed no statistical differences regarding the survival rate of implants (P = 0.34, P = 0.3) or overdentures (P = 0.74, P = 0.9) when using 4 versus 6 splinted implants to support overdentures, and no significant differences regarding prosthodontic complications were found between groups. Randomized studies presented high RoB and non-randomized studies presented acceptable quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limits of this systematic review, we can conclude that the bar-supported overdenture on four implants is not inferior to the overdenture supported by six implants for rehabilitating the edentulous maxilla, in terms of patient satisfaction, survival rates of implants and overdentures, and prosthodontic complications.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Maxilla; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 33962612
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01572-6 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Jan 2021To review the literatures concerning the effect of the single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and masticatory function...
AIM
To review the literatures concerning the effect of the single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and masticatory function in the fully edentulous patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science) were searched, complemented with manual resources. Prospective studies published in English up to February 2020 reporting the effect of SIMO on PROMs and masticatory function in the edentulous patients were included. This review focused on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), satisfaction and masticatory function outcomes.
RESULTS
Of 1157 initially screened articles, 9 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 prospective studies involving 551 subjects fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two RCTs were graded as high risk of bias or some concern, while others were low risk. All prospective studies had adequate representativeness and assessment, but only one study had a controlled cohort. In general, the edentulous patients restored with SIMOs had improved OHRQoL and general satisfaction compared to those with conventional complete dentures (CCDs), but the outcome of masticatory function was controversial. Compared with two-implant mandibular overdenture (TIMO), SIMO showed no significant differences regarding general satisfaction and satisfaction with speech, comfort, chewing ability, aesthetics and social life. Conflicting results were observed in OHRQoL and satisfaction with retention and stability. Better masticatory performance was observed in TIMO group than SIMO group.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitation of this review, SIMO is featured with better OHRQoL and satisfaction than CCD. SIMO and TIMO rendered similar patient satisfaction, but TIMO had better masticatory performance.
Topics: Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Mandible; Mastication; Mouth, Edentulous; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 32989781
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13103 -
The European Journal of Prosthodontics... Aug 2022This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the results obtained clinically for bar-clip versus stud-retainers in overdentures. Three... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the results obtained clinically for bar-clip versus stud-retainers in overdentures. Three databases (PubMed Central, MEDLINE, and BvSalud) were used beyond a manual search. The study followed strictly the inclusion and exclusion criteria, considering the PICO strategy. For the risk of bias and quality assessment of studies, in the case of RCT, there were six domains of analysis, and for non-RCT studies, the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was performed. A meta-analysis was developed using the available data for marginal bone loss (MBL) and survival rate. 25 studies were included. The stud-retentor had the lowest implant SR (87.6%) and the greatest MBL (1.96 mm). For the bar-clip system, the mean survival rate was 95.91%, with only 4 studies included for this system, and the mean MBL was 1.13 mm. Only 3 studies directly compared both systems quantitatively, showing a significantly greater MBL toward the stud-retention group. The results may not allow determination of the best system for overdenture (stud retentor or bar-clip). Therefore, most of the studies suggested the stud-retentor as a more preferable system due to better distribution of forces, biological peri-implant behavior, low-cost, and ease for removal facilitating the sanitization and/or repair.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Mandible; Surgical Instruments
PubMed: 35333010
DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_2338deCastro19 -
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Jun 2024Critically evaluate the existing literature and answer the question, "Does the dental implant/mini-implant design influence the stress distribution in prosthetic... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Critically evaluate the existing literature and answer the question, "Does the dental implant/mini-implant design influence the stress distribution in prosthetic overdentures according to finite element analysis?".
METHODS
This systematic review was registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/2bquj) and followed the PRISMA protocols. The custom search strategy was applied to 4 databases. In vitro experimental studies that evaluated the influence of dental implant/mini-implant design on stress distribution in overdentures by FEM, without time and language restrictions, were included. The selection process was carried out in two stages by two reviewers independently. Risk of bias analysis was performed by a checklist of important parameters.
RESULTS
Sixty articles were evaluated by their title and abstract, four were selected for full reading, three were relevant, and nine were included by additional search. The 12 studies have a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data (implant type, design variation, load intensity, and direction).
CONCLUSION
It can be inferred from the evaluated literature that design modifications influence the stress distribution, but as the FEM presents limitations inherent to the in vitro study, clinical trials are necessary to infer the effectiveness of the modifications. It should be noted that there is no consensus on which is the best thread design and that implants with a very narrow diameter are subject to the highest stress concentration.
Topics: Denture, Overlay; Humans; Dental Implants; Finite Element Analysis; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Stress Analysis; Dental Prosthesis Design; Stress, Mechanical
PubMed: 37665393
DOI: 10.1007/s10006-023-01177-z -
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 -
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 -
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 International Journal of... 2020To analyze the current evidence on bone loss in the posterior edentulous mandible restored with complete dentures (CDs), two-implant-supported overdentures (2-IODs), or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To analyze the current evidence on bone loss in the posterior edentulous mandible restored with complete dentures (CDs), two-implant-supported overdentures (2-IODs), or four-implant-supported overdentures (4-IODs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A search was conducted in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases for clinical studies comparing bone loss in posterior edentulous mandibles restored with CDs, 2-IODs, or 4-IODs. A meta-analysis was performed using statistical software to estimate the mean differences in bone loss with 95% CI. The level of significance was set at P < .05.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 2,806 articles, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis included 7 two-arm studies comparing CDs vs 2-IODs or 2-IODs vs 4-IODs. No statistically significant difference was found in bone loss between 2-IODs and CDs (mean difference -0.25 [95% CI -0.85 to 0.36]; P = .43), whereas bone loss was significantly lower with 4-IODs than with 2-IODs (mean difference -0.96 [95% CI -1.86 to -0.06]; P = .04). Overall, the data were highly heterogenous (I > 74%).
CONCLUSION
4-IODs can benefit the patient by decreasing bone loss in the posterior edentulous mandible. However, 2-IODs may not be superior to CDs in reducing bone loss in the posterior mandible. A validation of these results is needed through well-designed RCTs.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Mandible
PubMed: 32069343
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6636