-
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 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2024Different characteristics of bars (cross-sectional shape, diameter, distal extension etc.) lead to different biomechanical behavior (retention and stress) with implants...
Different characteristics of bars (cross-sectional shape, diameter, distal extension etc.) lead to different biomechanical behavior (retention and stress) with implants and peri-implant tissues.Aim: To evaluate the impact of implant-supported removable prostheses bar designs in fully edentulous arch (in the maxilla and/or mandibula), with 4 implants or more, on the peri-implant soft and hard tissues.Two reviewers searched for observational studies, RCT and in vitro studies, published on five main databases and three from the grey literature, without restrictions on November 2023.Of the 3049 selected articles, four met the inclusion criteria. Four RCT evaluated peri-implant health tissues in full edentulous arches with 4 or 6 implants rehabilitated with implant bar overdentures. One prospective study with 5 years follow-up evaluated the success/survival rate of implants and implant bar overdentures. Overall, 261 subjects were enrolled in our systematic review with 1176 implants. Overdentures' survival rate was 100%. There was a trend that plaque indices and gingival indices were low in all of the studies, however no statistical analysis was done due to the lack of information.Due to the lack of information in the included studies, we cannot confirm if bar characteristics affect the peri-implant tissues health.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Prospective Studies; Jaw, Edentulous; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Mouth, Edentulous; Mandible; Denture, Overlay; Denture Retention
PubMed: 38281916
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-03915-5 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2023To analyze the effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) or implant overdentures (IODs) on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To analyze the effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) or implant overdentures (IODs) on dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In January 2022, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened for prospective clinical studies on completely edentulous patients treated with IFCDs and/or IODs, reporting pre-treatment and follow-up dPROs. Hedges' g effect sizes (ES) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Afterward, meta-analyses were conducted using random effect models.
RESULTS
A total number of 1608 records was initially identified. Of those, 28 studies reporting dPROs from 1457 patients were finally included. The applied dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) included several versions of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) or specific items assessing satisfaction with Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). The overall ES was large for rehabilitation with IFCDs (1.68 [CI: 1.15, 2.20]) and IODs (1.26 [CI: 0.99, 1.52]) with no significant difference (p = .165) between the two. Denture stability was the only factor rated significantly higher for IFCDs (ES difference: 2.37 [CI: 0.21, 4.54]; p = .032). Subgroup analyses revealed moderately higher ES for IODs on two implants relative to one implant (ES difference: 0.73 [CI: 0.34, 1.12]; p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
There is a strong positive effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients, independent of the type of prosthetic rehabilitation. In patients seeking high stability, IFCDs may be preferable. In mandibular IODs on a single implant, there was a significantly positive effect of an additional implant on dPROs.
Topics: Humans; Denture, Overlay; Prospective Studies; Dental Implants; Denture, Complete; Mouth, Edentulous; Patient Reported Outcome Measures
PubMed: 37750530
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14065 -
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 -
Dental and Medical Problems 2023The ball attachments and their O-rings used for the retention and stabilization of overdentures showed a decrease in retention as the number of cycles increased. This... (Review)
Review
The ball attachments and their O-rings used for the retention and stabilization of overdentures showed a decrease in retention as the number of cycles increased. This fact resulted in a decrease in the retention of the prosthesis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fatigue resistance of ball attachments through a systematic review. An electronic search was performed using the Cochrane Library, LILACS, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases. The search was conducted based on the PICOS framework. The inclusion criteria involved in the search comprised research articles written in English and published between the years 2000 and 2020. In the final selection, 18 articles were included in the review. Most of these studies performed the fatigue retention tests using parallel implants without angles. However, some studies used different angles to analyze the fatigue retention values. With the passage of time, the wear results in deformation and, as a consequence, a decrease in the retention of most attachments, leading to treatment failure. The main factor to be considered is the loss of retention of these components and their low durability. The loss of retention is due to large extent to the materials used to manufacture the attachments and O-rings, the size and angulation of the implants, and the length of the prosthesis. Future research is needed to further elucidate the reasons for the failure of the attachments.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay
PubMed: 37023344
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/146719 -
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2022The purpose of this study is to evaluate the retention effectiveness of Molloplast B as a female attachment compared to O rings' in implant supported overdentures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the retention effectiveness of Molloplast B as a female attachment compared to O rings' in implant supported overdentures.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
This systematic review and meta-analysis was evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sixteen female part models were divided into two groups: eight female parts made with O ring (Group A) and eight female parts made with Molloplast B (Group B). All of the models were soaked in artificial saliva for 24 h, then, their retention force was measured in Newton using a Universal mechanical testing machine, initially, after 500, after 1000, and after 1500 of loading and dislodging cycles.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
: The statistical analysis was conducted by using one way ANOVA test and Bonferroni test. SPSS Software (SPSS, Version 27, IBM Co., Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS
After 1500 loading and dislodging cycles, Group B has the highest mean retention force (4.09), followed by Group A, which has a mean retention force of 3.73.
CONCLUSION
Molloplast B with a 2.7 mm diameter ball attachment lost the least amount of retention force after 1500 loading and dislodging cycles.
Topics: Female; Humans; Denture Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Stress Analysis; Dental Implants; Denture, Overlay
PubMed: 36511057
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_43_22 -
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2021This systematic review aimed to compare different attachment systems used in mandibular implant supported overdentures by assessing outcomes such as prosthodontic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review aimed to compare different attachment systems used in mandibular implant supported overdentures by assessing outcomes such as prosthodontic maintenance and complication, peri implant tissue changes, retention, and patient satisfaction for optimum selection of attachment system.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
This systematic review conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic electronic literature search was conducted through PubMed, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central), and Science direct. A hand search was also performed for individual journals and reference lists of selected studies. Randomized controlled clinical trials and crossover clinical trials from 2010 to 2020 with follow up of more than 1 year were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for assessing the risk of bias of included studies.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
The statistical meta analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 5.4. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboation, 2020.
RESULTS
Six studies that met the inclusion criteria possess the low risk of bias with follow up of more than 1 year were included in this systematic review. Out of four outcomes, meta analysis was performed for prosthodontic maintenance and peri implant tissue changes. Due to the limited availability of data, retention and patient satisfaction were reviewed systematically without meta analysis. The result of meta analysis for ball versus magnet attachment showed statistically significant differences in prosthodontic complications and maintenance, and ball attachment reported fewer complications than the locator attachment (risk ratio [RR] =0.55, confidence interval [CI] =95%, P = 0.03). Peri implant tissue changes were analyzed in the included studies as probing depth and marginal bone loss. The result of meta analysis for probing depth showed no statistically significant difference between bar versus telescopic type of attachment (RR = 0.20, CI = 95%, P = 0.74). The meta analysis results for marginal bone loss showed no statistically significant difference between bar versus telescopic type of attachment (mean difference = 0.35, CI = 95%, P = 0.10).
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from the current review that bar attachment provided the most superior retention. The telescopic attachment system not only showed the most favorable patient's satisfaction but also reported the least peri implant mucosal changes. The ball attachment system is a favorable choice for limited inter arch space and parallel implant placement.
Topics: Cross-Over Studies; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 34810359
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_158_21 -
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 -
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 -
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