-
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 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 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 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Oct 2021Purpose To clarify the rate of posterior residual ridge resorption (PRRR) in different denture treatments and the factors that can affect PRRR.Study selection A...
Purpose To clarify the rate of posterior residual ridge resorption (PRRR) in different denture treatments and the factors that can affect PRRR.Study selection A bibliographical electronic search was conducted on MeSH, Web of Science, and Ovid databases. Hand searching was also conducted. Longitudinal studies recording the average rate of PRRR in the mandible were included. The effect size was calculated based on the mean rate of PRRR with standard deviation and group size. The random-effects analysis was used to perform meta-analyses across qualified studies.Results A total of 2245 eligible studies were collected from the MeSH, Web of Science, and Ovid databases and hand searching. In the end, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria and were extracted. The average rate of PRRR in different mandibular denture treatments was assessed in this systematic review. The mean combined effect size was -1.05 ± 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.18-1.08) between four-implant overdentures and two-implant overdentures. The combined effect size was -0.01 ± 0.22 (95% CI: -0.93-0.82) between complete dentures and two-implant overdentures. Body mass index, number of dentures used, denture wearing habit, impression technique, artificial tooth material, and peri-implant bone resorption showed no significant effect on the rate of PRRR. Gender, denture material, and relining frequency showed a significant effect on the rate of PRRR.Conclusions This review summarized different average rates of PRRR in mandibular denture treatments. Meta-analyses have reported that four-implant overdenture treatments can lower the rate of PRRR compared to two-implant overdenture treatments. However, there was no significant difference in the treatment effect between the complete denture and two-implant overdenture treatments.
Topics: Bone Resorption; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Mandible
PubMed: 33281173
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00075 -
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 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Apr 2021The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes edentulism as a physical impairment that results in a negative impact in the daily activities. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes edentulism as a physical impairment that results in a negative impact in the daily activities.
OBJECTIVE
The study aimed to compare the satisfaction and the quality of life, in patients treated with implant retained overdentures with two mandibular implants (IOD) against those with mandibular conventional complete dentures (CCD).
METHODS
Different search strategies were used to screen for articles in Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Library and Scielo of the last 17 years (2003-2020). The keywords used were: "quality of life OR satisfaction" AND "complete denture OR conventional denture" AND "overdenture OR implant retained."
RESULTS
Six articles and two more were added by manual search. The population was 400 in the CCD and 412 for IOD. The mean age was 64.3 ± 6.41 years. The group was comprised of 283 men and 427 women. The scores obtained in the visual analog scale (VAS) before and after the treatment were statistically significant in favor of the IOD for overall satisfaction, (WMD: 12.329; 95% CI: 4.873 to 19.784, p-value = 0.001), comfort, speech and stability. For esthetics and chewing there was non-significant improvement while hygiene worsened for the IOD. For the comparison after the treatment between both treatment modalities a statistically significant improvement was found in overall satisfaction (WMD: 14.408; 95% CI: 8.589 to 20.226, p-value < 0.001), comfort, speech, chewing and stability in favor of the IOD but not in esthetics or hygiene.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis show the superiority of the IOD, despite is not achieved in all aspects.
Topics: Aged; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete; Denture, Complete, Lower; Denture, Overlay; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Personal Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33205918
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.347 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2021The immediate loading protocol for 2-implant mandibular overdentures has been widely reported. Nevertheless, the clinical effects reported in different articles are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The immediate loading protocol for 2-implant mandibular overdentures has been widely reported. Nevertheless, the clinical effects reported in different articles are quite different.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to compare the clinical effects of immediate and delayed loading of 2-implant mandibular overdentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The review followed the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, CBM, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases were searched electronically for RCTs published before March 25, 2020. Two authors independently conducted literature screening, quality assessment, and data extraction. The outcomes of interest were implant failure rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability quotient (ISQ), periotest value (PTV), and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
A total of 2498 unduplicated records were identified. After full-text analysis, 7 eligible RCTs were included. All studies were followed for at least 12 months, and the meta-analysis was based on this. The meta-analysis showed that the implant failure rate in the immediate group was higher than that in the delayed group, but there was no statistically significant difference (I=0%; n=7; risk difference [RD]=0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.01 to 0.08). The difference of MBL between immediate and delayed loading was not significant (I=88%; n=6; mean difference [MD]=-0.04; 95% CI=-0.16 to 0.24). Because of the limited articles reporting on ISQ, PTV, and patient satisfaction, no quantitative analysis was conducted for these outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the implant failure rate was more likely to favor the delayed group, available evidence indicates no statistical difference in implant failure and marginal bone loss between immediate and delayed loading protocols.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33139056
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.011 -
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 -
Minerva Stomatologica Aug 2020In this systematic review, several masticatory function parameters assessed during mandibular single-implant overdenture (SIO) use were compared to pre- SIO placement...
INTRODUCTION
In this systematic review, several masticatory function parameters assessed during mandibular single-implant overdenture (SIO) use were compared to pre- SIO placement values in edentulous patients with aim of contributing to a consensus regarding denture treatment options.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
This study was registered a priori in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018106567). Two independent reviewers carried out electronic searches in eight databases, without language or time frame limitations, to collate clinical studies comparing masticatory function of edentulous patients before versus after SIO installation with the implant placed on the mandibular midline. Risk of bias was assessed with a before-and-after tool and evidence certainty level was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation program.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eleven studies were included in this review (1 prospective, 3 crossover trials, 4 randomized clinical trials, 2 paired clinical trials, and 1 pilot). Enrolled patients were mostly over 60 years old; all patients were using conventional complete dentures (CD) prior to SIO installation. Masticatory performance, masticatory efficiency, bite force, and muscle activity were improved after the SIO placement compared to during mandibular CD use. Mandibular movement and masticatory ability data were inconclusive. Most of the studies had low risk of bias, but all had very low certainly level ratings due to methodological heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
Placement of SIO improves masticatory function, as reflected mostly by masticatory performance and efficiency data, relative to CD use. Further studies comparing dental rehabilitation options, including SIOs, are needed to improve the quality of evidence in the literature.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Mandible; Mastication; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 32945635
DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.20.04327-7 -
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