-
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jun 2022A systematic review of the effect of different overdenture attachments with different loading protocols on peri-implant health is lacking. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of 2-implant mandibular overdenture with different attachments and loading protocols on peri-implant health and prosthetic complications: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
A systematic review of the effect of different overdenture attachments with different loading protocols on peri-implant health is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of different overdenture attachments with delayed or immediately loaded 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures on peri-implant tissue health.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The outcomes were marginal bone loss, probing depth, plaque index, bleeding on probing, implant survival rate, and prosthetic complications. The Bayesian network meta-analysis accompanied by a random effect model and 95% credible intervals was calculated.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCT (n=599 participants receiving 1198 dental implants) were included. Five common overdenture attachment systems with delayed or immediate loading were compared. The difference in marginal bone loss and probing depth was not statistically significant when comparing different overdenture attachments with different loading protocols. The rank probability test showed that bar+ immediate loading ranked highest (63.8%) in terms of marginal bone loss, whereas ball+ delayed loading (73.3%) ranked highest in terms of probing depth. The implant survival rate was 100% for the LOCATOR+ delayed loading, resilient telescopic+ delayed loading, and magnet+ immediate loading; however, bar+ delayed loading, ball+ delayed loading, magnet+ delayed loading, LOCATOR+ immediate loading, ball+ immediate loading, and bar+ immediate loading had survival rates of 99.1%, 98.8%, 96.0%, 94.7%, 93.1%, and 91.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
All types of overdenture attachment with immediate loading or delayed loading had a similar effect on peri-implant health. Bar+ immediate loading was associated with the least marginal bone loss, whereas ball+ delayed loading showed the least probing depth.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33546861
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.016 -
The Journal of Contemporary Dental... Nov 2021The purpose of this review is to compare randomized clinical trials evaluating the peri-implant tissue outcomes using different unsplinted attachment systems in two... (Review)
Review
AIM
The purpose of this review is to compare randomized clinical trials evaluating the peri-implant tissue outcomes using different unsplinted attachment systems in two implant-retained mandibular overdentures.
BACKGROUND
Literature lacks information on various unsplinted attachment systems and their effect on peri-implant tissue health. A focus question (as per PICOS) was set as follows: Does one particular unsplinted attachment system (I) compared with another (C) results in better peri-implant outcomes (O) in two implant-retained mandibular overdentures (P) using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (S)? The literature search was conducted in the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases between January 2011 and December 2021. The keywords used were "denture, overlay," "denture," "overlay" AND "dental prosthesis, implant supported," "dental implants," "dental implant abutment design" AND "jaw, edentulous," "mouth, edentulous" AND "mandible." Only RCTs on two implant-retained mandibular overdentures using unsplinted attachment systems measuring peri-implant tissue outcomes with minimum 1-year follow-up were selected. In total, 224 studies were identified in initial search, and 25 were shortlisted for full-text evaluation. Four studies were included for systematic review upon considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0).
REVIEW RESULTS
A total of 41 patients received ball attachments (in 3 studies), 36 patients received low-profile attachments (in 3 studies), 16 patients received magnet attachments (in 1 study), and 13 patients received telescopic attachments (in 1 study). All four studies used standard sized implants, however, differed in implant manufacturers. Two studies which compared ball attachments low-profile attachments revealed-similar peri-implant tissue health parameters but differed in crestal bone-level changes. One study compared ball with telescopic attachments and revealed similar results in crestal bone-level changes and all four peri-implant tissue health parameters. Single study compared magnets with low-profile attachments and shown lesser bone loss with magnet attachments. Single study was judged to have low risk of bias, single with some concerns, and remaining two to have high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Gingival index and bleeding index of the patients were not influenced by any of the unsplinted overdenture attachment (stud, magnet, telescopic) system. Inconclusive results found among the studies evaluated comparing crestal bone loss and plaque index.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This review manuscript has simplified comparative analysis of different unsplinted attachment systems used in two implant mandibular overdentures to help clinicians choose correct system in such situation.
Topics: Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35343463
DOI: No ID Found -
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 Prosthetic Dentistry Apr 2022A consensus based on patients' perceptions as to whether to use overdentures or fixed prostheses to rehabilitate mandibular edentulous arches is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical assessment of implant-supported overdentures and fixed prostheses in mandibular edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
A consensus based on patients' perceptions as to whether to use overdentures or fixed prostheses to rehabilitate mandibular edentulous arches is limited.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and clinical outcomes associated with implant-supported overdentures and fixed prostheses in edentulous mandibles.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Nine electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized clinical trials (N-RCTs). The risk of bias was assessed by the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs (RoB 2) and N-RCT (ROBINS-I). Data sets for oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), satisfaction, survival rate, implant probing depth, and marginal bone loss were plotted, and the appropriate analyses were applied by using the Rev Man 5.3 software program. Certainty of evidence was also evaluated by means of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Ten eligible trials were included and evaluated quantitatively. For 3 domains of OHRQoL, fixed prostheses showed significantly higher quality of life when compared with overdentures regarding functional limitation (P<.001), physical disability (P=.001), and physical pain (P=.003). Fixed prostheses also improved satisfaction, when compared with overdentures for comfort (P=.02), ease of mastication (P<.001), retention (P<.001), and stability (P<.001). The same pattern was observed for overall OHRQoL (P=.01) and satisfaction (P=.01) in which fixed prostheses improved patient satisfaction. Only ease of cleaning presented greater satisfaction for the overdenture group. Clinical parameters did not differ statistically (P>.05) between both types of prosthesis.
CONCLUSIONS
Fixed rehabilitations for mandibular edentulous patients seem to be a well-accepted treatment from the patients' oral health perspective. However, mandibular overdentures are no less efficient than fixed prostheses in terms of clinical outcomes.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Mouth, Edentulous; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33390270
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.005 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jan 2016This systematic review was performed to compare the survival of 1- vs. 2-implant overdentures (IODs) in the edentulous mandible. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review was performed to compare the survival of 1- vs. 2-implant overdentures (IODs) in the edentulous mandible.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Manual and electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL) searches were performed to identify scientific articles, published in English, reporting on mandibular IODs utilizing unsplinted attachments. Studies were included if they were prospective human studies reporting on two-piece microrough surface implants with a diameter ≥3 mm. Data were extracted by two independent investigators, and an overall inter-investigator kappa score was calculated. A meta-analysis was performed on the included comparative studies.
RESULTS
The search shortlisted 30 prospective studies for data extraction and statistical analysis. The included studies comprised of only two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1- vs. 2-IODs, and a further 28 prospective studies. The kappa score calculated was between 0.86 and 1 for the various parameters. One RCT favored 1-IODs (RD: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.14) while the other favored 2-IODs (RD:-0.04, 95% CI: -0.27, 0.19). However, the overall random effects model did not reveal a significant risk difference (RD) for implant failure between the two interventions (I(2) = 36.6%, P = 0.209; RD: 0.05, 95% CI: -0.07, 0.18).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis conclude that the postloading implant survival of 1-IODs is not significantly different from 2-IODs. However, the existing scientific evidence in the literature in terms of prospective comparative studies is scarce. Hence, before recommending the 1-IOD as a treatment modality, long-term observations are needed and a larger range of functional, prosthodontic, and patient-centered outcome measures should be considered.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture Retention; Denture, Complete, Lower; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Surface Properties
PubMed: 25350235
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12513 -
BMJ Open Aug 2016The need for denture treatment in public health will increase as the population ages. However, the impact of dentures on nutrition, particularly overdenture treatment,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The need for denture treatment in public health will increase as the population ages. However, the impact of dentures on nutrition, particularly overdenture treatment, remains unclear although the physical and psychological effects are known. We investigated whether treatment with a mandibular implant supported overdenture improves nutrient intake and markers of nutritional status better than a conventional complete denture in edentulous patients.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies published up to April 2016. We included studies which compared the treatment effect of an overdenture to conventional denture on nutrition, in which primary outcomes included changes in intake of macronutrients and/or micronutrients and/or indicators of nutritional status. Two reviewers independently evaluated eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias. We used a fixed effects model to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI for change in body mass index (BMI), albumin and serum vitamin B12 between overdenture and conventional denture 6 months after treatment.
RESULTS
Of 108 eligible studies, 8 studies involving 901 participants were included in the narrative appraisal. Four studies reported changes in markers of nutritional status and nutrient intake after treatment with a prosthetic, regardless of type. In a meta-analysis of 322 participants aged 65 years or older from three studies, pooled analysis suggested no significant difference in change in BMI between an overdenture and conventional denture 6 months after treatment (WMD=-0.18 kg/m(2) (95% CI -0.52 to 0.16)), and no significant difference in change in albumin or vitamin B12 between the two treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
The modifying effect of overdenture treatment on nutritional status might be limited. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and efficacy of denture treatments.
Topics: Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Diet; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Nutritional Status; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serum Albumin, Human; Vitamin B 12
PubMed: 27489156
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011799 -
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 -
Australian Dental Journal Dec 2016Conventional complete dentures and implant supported overdentures are commonly used by dentists to treat completely edentulous mandibular arches. There have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
BACKGROUND
Conventional complete dentures and implant supported overdentures are commonly used by dentists to treat completely edentulous mandibular arches. There have been problems associated with retention and stability while treating completely edentulous mandibular arches compared to maxillary arches. Many factors have been attributed to this, primarily focusing on the decreased area available for support and increased resorption. Implant supported overdentures have increased the treatment options for resorbed ridges, especially the mandible. However, no reports have proved the superiority of one treatment option over the other, especially in terms of patient-centric outcome measures such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Hence, this meta-analysis was conducted.
METHODS
A literature search of Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was performed. The reviewers screened titles, abstracts and performed full-text screening of eligible studies. The references from these studies were further screened for additional relevant studies. A random effects model was applied to measure the significance of the per cent mean difference in OHIP scale improvement between implant and conventional dentures. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was applied to assess the selection, ascertainment and selective reporting biases.
RESULTS
Five studies were reviewed and identified. Results of 441 patients (228 implant and 213 conventional) were pooled for analysis of primary outcome and other secondary outcomes. A forest plot of total OHIP scores and for secondary outcomes were obtained between the interventions. Results of 441 patients (228 implant and 213 conventional) were pooled for analysis of primary outcome with a mean difference [95% confidence interval] in the score of -30.72[-48.39, -13.05]; mean difference [95% confidence interval] in the score of -26.45[-43.56, -9.35] for functional limitation; -29.16[-60.89, 2.56] for physical pain; -77.61[-154.63, -0.60] for psychological discomfort; -33.70[-47.96, -19.44] for physical disability; -41.17[-55.93, -26.40] for psychological disability; -17.27[-29.44, 5.10] for social disability; and -28.45[-33.97, -22.92] for handicap. A statistically significant difference favouring the implant group was obtained except for physical pain.
CONCLUSIONS
The implant overdenture group performed better in regard to patient satisfaction as measured using the OHIP questionnaire. Further studies are required to identify superiority between the two treatment options.
Topics: Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete, Lower; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26836981
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12416 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Mar 2023The temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is a complex structure in the cranio-maxillomandibular region. The pathological changes of the joint cause deficiencies at different... (Review)
Review
The temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is a complex structure in the cranio-maxillomandibular region. The pathological changes of the joint cause deficiencies at different levels, making its replacement necessary in some cases. The aim of this article is to analyze the current indications, treatment and criteria, and follow-up using a systematic review and case series. A systematic review was carried out, identifying the indications for the use of a customized TMJ prosthesis and evaluating criteria and validation in the international literature. After review and exclusion, 8 articles were included with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The age of the subjects was between 18 and 47 years old. In 226 patients, 310 TMJ prostheses were installed, 168 bilaterally and 142 unilaterally. In most of the articles, a good condition in the follow-up was observed, with a reduction in pain and better conditions of mandibular movement and function. TMJ prosthesis and replacement is a protocolized, defined, stable, and predictable procedure. Indications and criteria must be evaluated by specialists and patients related to the pathology involved in TMJ deformity or degeneration. Randomized research with an accurate diagnosis and follow-up is necessary to obtain the best indication for this treatment.
PubMed: 36983715
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13030533 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2022Prosthetic rehabilitation, especially with removable complete dentures (CDs), can contribute to speech problems, although the prevalence of the problem is unclear. (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Prosthetic rehabilitation, especially with removable complete dentures (CDs), can contribute to speech problems, although the prevalence of the problem is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the influence of implant-supported fixed complete dentures (FCDs), implant-supported overdentures, and removable CDs on speech articulation disorders in patients with at least 1 completely edentulous jaw.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020182705). The PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through April 2020 to identify clinical trials comparing maxillary and/or mandibular implant-supported dentures with removable CD use in terms of speech articulation in participants with at least 1 completely edentulous jaw. The risk of bias of selected studies was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools, and the quality of evidence was tested by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Initially, 2586 articles were identified, and their titles and abstracts were read. Sixteen articles were read in full, and 8 studies (4 paired clinical trials and 4 cross-sectional studies) were included in this review. In total, 290 prosthesis users aged 29 to 90 years, approximately 44 of whom had hearing difficulties, were included. Four studies had a low risk of bias, and 4 studies had a high risk of bias. Distortions of the /s/ phoneme were observed more often in the first 6 months of maxillary FCD use than with removable CD use. Speech articulation did not differ between mandibular FCD and removable CD users. The quality of evidence for speech articulation disorders was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the low quality of evidence on speech articulation disorders, further research on speech articulation disorders in prosthesis wearers is needed.
Topics: Humans; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Speech; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Implants; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Jaw, Edentulous; Articulation Disorders; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 33865562
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.006