-
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Nov 2012The aim of this systematic review is to address treatment outcomes of Mandibular implant overdentures relative to implant survival rate, maintenance and complications,...
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review is to address treatment outcomes of Mandibular implant overdentures relative to implant survival rate, maintenance and complications, and patient satisfaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted by a PubMed search strategy and hand-searching of relevant journals from included studies. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT) and comparative clinical trial studies on mandibular implant overdentures until August, 2010 were selected. Eleven studies from 1098 studies were finally selected and data were analyzed relative to number of implants.
RESULTS
Six studies presented the data of the implant survival rate which ranged from 95% to 100% for 2 and 4 implant group and from 81.8% to 96.1% for 1 and 2 implant group. One study, which statistically compared implant survival rate showed no significant differences relative to the number of implants. The most common type of prosthetic maintenance and complications were replacement or reattaching of loose clips for 2 and 4 implant group, and denture repair due to the fracture around an implant for 1 and 2 implant groups. Most studies showed no significant differences in the rate of prosthetic maintenance and complication, and patient satisfaction regardless the number of implants.
CONCLUSION
The implant survival rate of mandibular overdentures is high regardless of the number of implants. Denture maintenance is likely not inflenced substantially by the number of implants and patient satisfaction is typically high again regardless os the number of implants.
PubMed: 23236572
DOI: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.204 -
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Oct 2014The aim of this review was to analyze the evaluation criteria on mandibular implant overdentures through a systematic review and suggest standardized evaluation criteria.
PURPOSE
The aim of this review was to analyze the evaluation criteria on mandibular implant overdentures through a systematic review and suggest standardized evaluation criteria.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted by PubMed search strategy and hand-searching of relevant journals from included studies considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and clinical trial studies comparing attachment systems on mandibular implant overdentures until December, 2011 were selected. Twenty nine studies were finally selected and the data about evaluation methods were collected.
RESULTS
Evaluation criteria could be classified into 4 groups (implant survival, peri-implant tissue evaluation, prosthetic evaluation, and patient satisfaction). Among 29 studies, 21 studies presented implant survival rate, while any studies reporting implant failure did not present cumulative implant survival rate. Seventeen studies evaluating peri-implant tissue status presented following items as evaluation criteria; marginal bone level (14), plaque Index (13), probing depth (8), bleeding index (8), attachment gingiva level (8), gingival index (6), amount of keratinized gingiva (1). Eighteen studies evaluating prosthetic maintenance and complication also presented following items as evaluation criteria; loose matrix (17), female detachment (15), denture fracture (15), denture relining (14), abutment fracture (14), abutment screw loosening (11), and occlusal adjustment (9). Atypical questionnaire (9), Visual analog scales (VAS) (4), and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) (1) were used as the format of criteria to evaluate patients satisfaction in 14 studies.
CONCLUSION
For evaluation of implant overdenture, it is necessary to include cumulative survival rate for implant evaluation. It is suggested that peri-implant tissue evaluation criteria include marginal bone level, plaque index, bleeding index, probing depth, and attached gingiva level. It is also suggested that prosthetic evaluation criteria include loose matrix, female detachment, denture fracture, denture relining, abutment fracture, abutment screw loosening, and occlusal adjustment. Finally standardized criteria like OHIP-EDENT or VAS are required for patient satisfaction.
PubMed: 25352954
DOI: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.5.325 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Implant overdentures are one of the most common treatment options used to rehabilitate edentulous patients. Attachment systems are used to anchor the overdentures to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Implant overdentures are one of the most common treatment options used to rehabilitate edentulous patients. Attachment systems are used to anchor the overdentures to implants. The plethora of attachment systems available dictates a need for clinicians to understand their prosthodontic and patient-related outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare different attachment systems for maxillary and mandibular implant overdentures by assessing prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient preference, patient satisfaction/quality of life and costs.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 January 2018); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 24 January 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 January 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials on 24 January 2018. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over trials on maxillary or mandibular implant overdentures with different attachment systems with at least 1 year follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors extracted data independently and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. Several corresponding authors were subsequently contacted to obtain missing information. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine the outcomes with risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence and create 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six RCTs with a total of 294 mandibular overdentures (including one cross-over trial). No trials on maxillary overdentures were eligible. Due to the poor reporting of the outcomes across the included trials, only limited analyses between mandibular overdenture attachment systems were possible.Comparing ball and bar attachments, upon pooling the data regarding short-term prosthodontic success, we identified substantial heterogeneity (I = 97%) with inconsistency in the direction of effect, which was unexplained by clinical or methodological differences between the studies, and accordingly we did not perform meta-analyses for this outcome. Short-term re-treatment (repair of attachment system) was higher with ball attachments (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.68 to 5.75; 130 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence), and there was no difference between both attachment systems in short-term re-treatment (replacement of attachment system) (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.71; 130 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in short-term prosthodontic success when ball attachments are compared with bar attachments.Comparing ball and magnet attachments, there was no difference between them in medium-term prosthodontic success (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or in medium-term re-treatment (repair of attachment system) (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 4.72; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). However, after 5 years, prosthodontic maintenance costs were higher when magnet attachments were used (MD -247.37 EUR, 95% CI -346.32 to -148.42; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in medium-term prosthodontic success when ball attachments are compared with magnet attachments.One trial provided data for ball versus telescopic attachments and reported no difference in prosthodontic maintenance between the two systems in short-term patrix replacement (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 41.96; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), matrix activation (RR 11.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 177.72; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), matrix replacement (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.31; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or in relining of the implant overdenture (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.81 to 6.76; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in short-term prosthodontic maintenance when ball attachments are compared with telescopic attachments.In the only cross-over trial included, patient preference between different attachment systems was assessed after only 3 months and not for the entire trial period of 10 years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For mandibular overdentures, there is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient satisfaction, patient preference or costs. In the short term, there is some evidence that is insufficient to show a difference and where there was no evidence was reported. It was not possible to determine any preferred attachment system for mandibular overdentures.For maxillary overdentures, there is no evidence (with no trials identified) to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient satisfaction, patient preference or costs.Further RCTs on edentulous cohorts must pay attention to trial design specifically using the same number of implants of the same implant system, but with different attachment systems clearly identified in control and test groups. Trials should also determine the longevity of different attachment systems and patient preferences. Trials on the current array of computer-aided designed/computer-assisted manufactured (CAD/CAM) bar attachment systems are encouraged.
Topics: Dental Implantation; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30308116
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008001.pub2 -
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