-
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 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2023The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prosthesis as a treatment option after mandibular condyle... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prosthesis as a treatment option after mandibular condyle fracture. Three databases were searched (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) and 2670 unique papers were identified. A total of 337 studies were included (121 case reports, 89 case series, and 127 cohort/clinical studies). In total 14,396 patients and 21,560 prostheses were described. Of the 127 cohort or clinical studies, 100 (79%) reported inclusion criteria, 54 (43%) reported exclusion criteria, and 96 (76%) reported the inclusion period. The base population from which patients were recruited was reported in 57 studies (45%). The reason for TMJ prosthesis implantation was reported for 4177 patients (29.0%). A history of condylar fracture was present in 83 patients (2.0%); a history of mandibular trauma was present in 580 patients (13.9%). The meta-analysis showed a pooled prevalence of condylar fracture of 1.6% (95% confidence interval 0.9-2.4%) and a pooled prevalence of trauma or condylar fracture of 11.3% (95% confidence interval 7.1-16.0%). Heterogeneity was highly significant (P < 0.001). The TMJ prosthesis appears to be reserved for patients with persistent pain, bony or fibrous ankylosis, or osteomyelitis after primary closed or open treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Condyle; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Tooth Ankylosis; Mandibular Fractures; Temporomandibular Joint; Ankylosis
PubMed: 35752530
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.05.014 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Feb 2021To evaluate implant and prosthetic survival rates of full-arch rehabilitations retained by three implants in patients with edentulous mandibles. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate implant and prosthetic survival rates of full-arch rehabilitations retained by three implants in patients with edentulous mandibles.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was developed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The focused question was: Are fixed mandibular 3-implant retained prostheses safe and predicable for full-arch mandibular prostheses? The Medline/PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were used to conduct the systematic search for clinical trials on fixed mandibular 3-implant retained prostheses published between 1999 and 2020. Only English-language studies that presented information on implant and prosthetic survival were included.
RESULTS
A total of 302 studies were identified, of which 13 addressed the inclusion criteria. Additionally, 574 participants were included in these studies. As reported, 73 (4.57%) of 1596 implants failed, with a survival rate of 95.43%. In addition, the mean survival rate of the presented prostheses was 89.66%. The mean marginal bone loss was 1.09 mm.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of the present review, implant and prosthetic survival rates of fixed mandibular 3-implant retained prostheses were similar to those of full-arch mandibular prostheses retained by four or more implants. Further research exploring the topic is necessary.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Mandible; Mandibular Prosthesis
PubMed: 32893938
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13253 -
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 Sep 2022Although mandibular implant-supported overdentures have been highly recommended as a treatment option, a consensus on the type of attachment systems that can be used to... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Although mandibular implant-supported overdentures have been highly recommended as a treatment option, a consensus on the type of attachment systems that can be used to increase implant and prostheses survivability is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare different types of attachments for retention by investigating outcome measures such as implant and prosthesis survival rates and biological and prosthesis complications in participants with a mandibular implant-supported overdenture.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The search was performed in the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus databases by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021253566). An analysis of association was conducted between different attachment systems and implant and overdenture survival rates in randomized controlled clinical trials.
RESULTS
The initial search indicated 477 studies, of which 25 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for analysis. A total of 2154 implants and 737 overdentures were analyzed in the meta-analysis. The main results indicated the failure rate for dental implants to be 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 3.2) and overdentures 4.2% (95% CI, 1.6 to 10.5), respectively. With regard to different attachment systems, a similar failure rate was identified with bar-type retention (7.7% to 95% CI, 3.0 to 18.1), magnetic retention systems (7.6% to 95% CI, 2.2 to 22.7), and ball-type retention (6.8% to 95% CI, 3.0 to 14.3). No significant difference was found in biological complications for splinted and unsplinted implant overdentures (P=.902). Regarding prosthetic complications, the most favorable groups were LOCATOR attachments followed by telescopic and Conus, bar, and ball attachments. Magnet attachments had higher prosthetic complications (7.4 times) than the other attachments.
CONCLUSIONS
Implants and implant-supported mandibular overdentures showed a high survival rate irrespective of the attachment system used. Splinting implants did not significantly affect the rate of biological complications. Prosthetic complications were most common for magnet and least common for LOCATOR attachments.
PubMed: 36115712
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.004 -
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 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Oct 2023The aim of this systematic review was to compare treatment outcomes in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review was to compare treatment outcomes in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between narrow-diameter implants and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) for mandibular implant overdentures (MIOs).
METHODS
This study was based on the methodology adapted as per Cochrane. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for pertinent studies published by July 22, 2022. Outcome parameters included in this meta-analysis were implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, visual analogue scale score for patient satisfaction, and value of oral health impact profile.
RESULTS
A total of 782 non-duplicate articles and 83 clinical study registrations were identified from database and hand searches, of which 26 were eligible for full-text searches. Finally, 12 publications reporting on 8 independent studies were included in this review. In the meta-analysis, implant survival rate and marginal bone loss did not significantly differ between narrow-diameter implants and RDIs. Regarding RDIs, narrow-diameter implants were associated with significantly better outcomes in general patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life than RDIs for mandibular overdentures.
CONCLUSIONS
Narrow-diameter implants have competitive treatment outcomes compared to RDIs in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and PROMs. [Correction added on July 21, 2023, after first online publication: The abbreviation RDIs was changed to PROMs in the preceding sentence.] Thus, narrow-diameter implants might be an alternative treatment option for MIOs in situations with limited alveolar bone volume.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Quality of Life; Denture, Overlay; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Treatment Outcome; Mandible; Alveolar Bone Loss
PubMed: 37365991
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13726 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Nov 2023Patients with vascularized bone flaps from the fibula have reduced bone height, in which case a higher prosthetic abutment is needed for their implant-supported... (Review)
Review
Predictability of single versus double-barrel vascularized fibula flaps and dental implants in mandibular reconstructions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Patients with vascularized bone flaps from the fibula have reduced bone height, in which case a higher prosthetic abutment is needed for their implant-supported prosthesis. Although the double-flap technique seems promising, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prospective studies are lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the grafted areas of single barrel fibular flaps (SBFF) and double-barrel fibular flaps (DBFF) by considering failure rates, dental implant complications, and bone union at the osteotomy sites.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) question, and the National Health and Medical Research Council scales. The event rate of complications and failures was calculated with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%.
RESULTS
A total of 13 prospective studies with 441 participants and 330 graft sites were identified. A total of 235 participants had SBFF with 445 implants, and 95 had DBFF with 164 implants. The overall combined graft failure rates were 4.2% for SBFF and 3.2% for DBFF. The complication rate was 10% for SBFF and 1.9% for DBFF. Implant failure was at 4.7% in the SBFF group and 3.4% in the DBFF group.
CONCLUSIONS
Complication rates and implant failures were similar for SBFF and DBFF. Therefore, for long-term oral rehabilitation, both SBFF and DBFF are suitable procedures for mandibular reconstruction.
PubMed: 37978003
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.10.007 -
Journal of Oral Biology and... 2023Though, mechanical dental implant and supported prosthesis failures are considered significant, a comprehensive evaluation is lacking. A systematic review analyzing... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Though, mechanical dental implant and supported prosthesis failures are considered significant, a comprehensive evaluation is lacking. A systematic review analyzing different aspects related to such failures was therefore done.
METHODS
Electronic search was carried out in PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library for articles published between 1981 and 2021. Articles were selected using predefined criteria. Data extraction was based on mechanical complications associated with dental implants, prosthetic implant failures, survival rate of implants, mechanical failure of implants placed in the maxilla and mandible, and mechanical complications associated with implant supported over dentures. Quality of included studies was assessed. Meta-analysis for heterogenicity testing, publication bias and implant failure assessment was conducted using MedCalc® Statistical Software version 19.7.
RESULTS
Eighteen retrospective and prospective studies were included following PRISMA guidelines. Mechanical complications were more in the initial 9 years but reduced later. Abutment screw loosening was one of the more common mechanical complications (16.21%). Maxillary implant failure was greater compared to mandibular implant failure with an odds ratio of 4.66 (95% CI -3.21- 6.75). Failure of implant supported overdentures due to mechanical complications were 3% in the fixed effect, and 2.9% in the random effect model ( < 0.05). The overall prevalence of mechanical failure was between 5.6% and 7.7% (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Mechanical failures of implant and supported prosthesis have similar prevalence to biological and esthetic failures, and therefore need to be given due credence. Identifying specific factors contributing to such failures can help reduce incidence.
PubMed: 36923071
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2023.02.009 -
Brazilian Oral Research 2014This systematic review evaluated the influence played by the number of implants on the results of rehabilitation treatment with mandibular overdentures on 2 or 4... (Review)
Review
This systematic review evaluated the influence played by the number of implants on the results of rehabilitation treatment with mandibular overdentures on 2 or 4 implants. The literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Specific terms were used in performing a search from January 1980 to January 2013. The search strategy was applied by two reviewers who extracted the data and compared the results. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Great heterogeneity was seen among the selected studies, in regard to survival rates, prosthesis failure and function rates. A medium degree of quality and methodological consistency was found in one study, and no studies showed a high degree. When considering the prosthesis success rate for 2 implants, there was a variation of 23% to 100%. However, when considering the survival rate, the result was 92% to 100%. For 4 implants, prosthesis survival rates showed less variation, i.e., 97.7% to 100%. Ball attachments were the most common type of abutment for 2 implants; however, there was a higher prevalence of bar abutments for 4 implants. Rehabilitations with 2 implants showed more complications and required more maintenance according to the connection type. Given the limitations of this review, mandibular overdentures with 4 implants showed better results with respect to survival and success rates, especially those with a bar connection. Further studies comparing these two treatment types are necessary to improve the scientific evidence in this area.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Complete, Lower; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24402059
DOI: 10.1590/S1806-83242013000600012