Purpose: This systematic review was undertaken to establish the most favourable protocol to treat an edentulous mandible with a single implant-retained overdenture. The formulated PICO question was: "Which surgical and prosthetic protocols result in the highest survival and complication rates of implants and prostheses employed in a single implant retained overdenture for the rehabilitation of a completely edentulous mandibular ridge?" Materials and Methods: A structured literature search was conducted using the following databases; PubMed, ScienceDirect, COCHRANE, LILACS, IndeMED, OVID, EMBASE, NIH Clinical Trials for reports related to the single implant-retained overdenture treatment. Only English articles were included. Publications with a minimum follow up time of 1 year and above were included for meta-analysis. A Poisson regression model was applied to estimate the survival rates of the implant and prosthesis employed. Results: The electronic database search yielded 2083 titles and abstracts; and a total of 17 were selected for the systematic review, of which 11 studies were subjected to meta-analysis. The implants showed high estimated five and 10-year survival rates of 91.93% and 84.62%, respectively. Implants that were delayed loaded showed the greatest survival rates, while immediately loaded implants presented with higher survival rates at five (p = 0.849) and 10 years (p = 0.464) when compared to early loaded implants. The greatest number of fractures were associated with ball abutments with an event rate of 10.8 (95% CI: 10.5-11.09) per 100 prosthesis years, while locator abutments showed a greater number of maintenance events with an event rate of 16.84(95% CI:16.01-17.66) per 100 prosthesis years. Conclusion: Single implant-retained overdenture treatment is a cost-effective, minimally invasive and simple treatment that can be used to restore function and aesthetics to edentulous patients, with relatively high implant and prosthesis success rates and minimal complications.
Aim:
This study aims to evaluate and compare the crestal bone levels around implants as influenced by conventional and diode laser during second-stage surgery in an edentulous mandible using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital radiography (DR).
Settings and Design:
A split-mouth
in vivo
prospective study on edentulous patients involving placement of two implants in mandible followed by the comparison of two different techniques for second-stage surgery.
Materials and Methods:
The study was undertaken to evaluate the crestal bone change around 16 implant sites distributed in two groups (eight implants each) following two methods during second-stage surgery, i.e., Group 1 - Conventional second stage and Group 2 - Diode laser. Measurements were made on two sides (mesial and distal) using intraoral periapical and four sides (labial, lingual, mesial, and distal) using CBCT scans for both groups. These measurements were conducted at two time intervals for both, i.e., immediately after implant loading and twenty 4 weeks after implant loading. The values obtained were subjected to statistical analysis.
Statistical Analysis Used:
The normality of data was checked by Shapiro–Wilk's test. Intragroup comparison was compared using independent
t
-test by
post hoc
comparison by Bonferroni method (
P
< 0.05).
Results:
Crestal bone loss at the time of loading for Group 1 evaluated by CBCT was 0.950 ± 0.988 while after 24 weeks of loading, it was 1.388 ± 0.576. For Group 2, mean crestal bone loss was 1.200 ± 0.925 at the time of loading, and after 24 weeks, it was 1.512 ± 0.674. Crestal bone loss at the time of loading for Group 1 evaluated by DR was 1.075 ± 0.849 while after 24 weeks of loading, it was 1.562 ± 0.480. For Group 2, mean crestal bone loss was 1.162 ± 0.833 at the time of loading and after 24 weeks, it was 1.700 ± 0.498.
Conclusions:
In the present study, no statistically significant difference was observed in crestal bone loss between conventional and diode laser technique.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.