-
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry May 2024Immediately loaded mandibular overdentures are clinically acceptable treatment options that have gained popularity because their use shortens the treatment duration.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Patient-reported outcome measures and prosthetic events in implant-supported mandibular overdenture patients after immediate versus delayed loading: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Immediately loaded mandibular overdentures are clinically acceptable treatment options that have gained popularity because their use shortens the treatment duration. However, whether the immediate loading of dental implants can match the prosthetic events, satisfaction, and quality of life of delayed loading is still unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the prosthetic events, satisfaction, and quality of life of immediate versus delayed loading implants in patients rehabilitated with mandibular overdentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered at The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021258187). Electronic searches were carried out by 2 independent reviewers in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to May 2021. Only randomized clinical trials and prospective studies with at least 10 participants that compared immediate versus delayed loading were selected. A meta-analysis was performed by using the RevMan 5 software program for complications and maintenance outcomes.
RESULTS
Seven articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and 4 were included in the quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between immediate and delayed loading for prosthetic complications (RR=1.71; 95% CI=0.67-4.37; I=85%, P=.27) or maintenance (RR=1.92, 95% CI=0.44-8.28; I=94%, P=.38).
CONCLUSIONS
Although the prosthetic complications and maintenance were more likely to favor the delayed loading group, available evidence showed no statistical difference for prosthetic complications and maintenance between immediate loading and delayed loading in mandibular overdentures.
Topics: Humans; Denture, Overlay; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Mandible; Quality of Life; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 35501187
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.03.015 -
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