-
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 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 -
Cureus Sep 2023Restoration of hemimandibulectomy defects following tumour extirpation to restore oral function is a herculean task for practitioners. Prosthetic treatment alternatives... (Review)
Review
Restoration of hemimandibulectomy defects following tumour extirpation to restore oral function is a herculean task for practitioners. Prosthetic treatment alternatives available for rehabilitation of acquired hemimandibulectomy defects according to mandibular reconstruction type and extent (Cantor-Curtis classification) are unclear. This systematic review aims to assess the spectrum of prosthodontic rehabilitation approaches with regard to reconstruction type and extent of mandibular surgical defects. The databases incorporated for literature search were Google Scholar and Medline (PubMed). Relevant search terms for hemimandibulectomy and reconstruction with prosthetic rehabilitation were used. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles using eligibility criteria; published case reports and case series in the English language and depicting prosthodontic treatment modality of patients greater than 15 years were included. A total of 202 records were identified from the database search of which 19 duplicates were removed. The remaining articles were assessed for eligibility, and 55 articles (comprising 58 cases) were finally included in the study. This review revealed various prosthetic alternatives ranging from guide flange, twin occlusion, palatal ramp, conventional to hybrid partial and complete dentures to implant-supported prosthesis including a few innovative prosthetic approaches. This systematic review provides a plethora of prosthodontic rehabilitation approaches according to the extent of hemimandibular surgical defect and type of reconstruction. This will facilitate practitioners and prosthodontists in sequential treatment planning and management of hemimandibulectomy cases in their routine practice.
PubMed: 37799255
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44647 -
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 -
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice Sep 2023Dental implants are considered an ideal treatment for a missing single tooth. Immediate loading of implants can hasten the procedure, providing comfort to the patients.... (Review)
Review
Dental implants are considered an ideal treatment for a missing single tooth. Immediate loading of implants can hasten the procedure, providing comfort to the patients. Recently, immediate loading of implants has gained much importance as it helps hasten the procedure and provides more comfort to patients. A previous systematic review published 5 years ago compared the success rates between immediate and conventional loading. There are several factors that influence the success rate of implants that were not discussed in detail in the previous review. Hence, the present systematic review is done to report differences in the outcomes from single implant restorations of missing teeth in the posterior region in patients who were subjected to immediate loading and conventional loading. A follow up for 1 year was done. Electronic databases of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for publications in the English Language during May 2021. The search results yielded 306 articles, out of which 225 were excluded based on title and abstract screening. Screening of the remaining 81 full text articles yielded 14 original research articles that satisfied the predefined inclusion criteria. Meta analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data. The overall success rate of the immediate loading of a single implant is 94.31%. Implants in the maxillary region had a higher survival rate than those in the mandibular region. The age range between 18 and 80 years showed good prognosis and outcomes in older individuals. Good oral hygiene was emphasized for all patients to prevent any secondary conditions or delays in healing.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Anodontia; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 37794532
DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_884_22 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Journal of Advanced Periodontology &... 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the prevalence of proximal contact loss and its associated factors. A bibliographic search was conducted in June...
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the prevalence of proximal contact loss and its associated factors. A bibliographic search was conducted in June 2021 with no limitation in the article date or language and updated in January 2022 by hand searching. There was no time limit on the search to retrieve all studies. The search included randomized controlled trials or quasi-experiments, and cross-sectional or cohort studies were included in the absence of these studies. Two authors screened the title and abstract. After evaluating the full texts of selected articles, irrelevant studies and or non-English papers that were impossible to translate were excluded. Disagreements between the re-viewers' selection process were resolved by debate on the eligibility of studies. Standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute for different types of studies were used to assess the studies' quality. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software (Version 2.2; Biostat, Englewood, NJ) was used for data analysis. The proximal contact loss (PCL) frequency was %29. According to the results, the frequencies of PCL for the distal and mesial aspects were %7 and %21, respectively. The meta-analysis results showed that the contact loss events on the mesial aspect were statistically higher than on the distal aspect (P<0.0001). There were no significant differences between other associated factors such as the mandibular or maxillary arch, retention type, opposing dentition, implant type, molar or non-molar, parafunction behaviors, and vitality of adjacent teeth. There was a significant association between bone loss and PCL, and in individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher (OR: %95[ 2.43 CI: 4.03‒1.47], P=0.0006). The PCL in the anterior area was lower than in the posterior area (P=0.004). Although the frequency of contact loss in females was higher than in males, this rate was not statistically significant. The PCL on the mesial aspect and the posterior area was high. In individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher than in others.
PubMed: 36714081
DOI: 10.34172/japid.2022.023