Effects of attachment type and number of dental implants supporting mandibular overdenture on peri-implant health: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Conventional complete dentures have long been considered as one of the treatment options for restoring the esthetics and function of edentulous patients. It has the advantages of being the cheapest treatment for replacing the entire teeth in the upper and lower jaws, the shortest treatment time from start to finish, and an esthetically acceptable treatment regime. However, it has inherent disadvantages, such as low retention, lack of stability, and low chewing efficiency, especially in patients with alveolar ridge atrophy [1,2]. Implant-supported fixed dentures are still considered the best treatment option for the rehabilitation of edentulous patients; however, many patients cannot afford the high price of such treatment. Therefore, to overcome the lack of retention and stability of conventional dentures, particularly in the mandible, and the high cost of implant-supported fixed prostheses, implant-supported overdentures (ODs) have long been considered alternative treatment options. It is a removable prosthesis supported by single, two, or more dental implants via attachment systems (e.g., ball, bar, locator, magnet, or resilient telescopic). This treatment has been reported to be superior to conventional dentures in terms of patient satisfaction, function (ability to speak and chew, comfort, social contact), and quality of life [3][4][5].To date, a heated debate still exists regarding the effect of different OD attachment systems (OAS) and different numbers of dental implants on peri-implant health [6][7][8][9]. Although mandibular two implant-supported ODs are considered the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients, according to the York Consensus Statement[10] evidence regarding the number of dental implants and attachment systems for supporting mandibular ODs has the least marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding index (BI), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI) and higher implant survival rate (ISR) is lacking.

Evaluation of the Effects of Attachment Type and Implant Number on Life Quality of Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdenture Prosthesis Patients

“…According to the York Consensus, implanting two implants in patients with implant-supported mandibular overdentur is a standard procedure for minimal care in the rehabilitation of edentulous patients (18). However, there are meta-analyses indicating that there is an improvement in peri-implant health parameters when the number of implants is increased to 3 and 4 (19). In the light of this information, patients who were rehabilitated with two implants, as well as patients with mandibular overdenture prosthesis supported by 3 and 4 implants, were included in our study.…”

New trends in implant dentistry: Toward a super-aging society

“…Furthermore, minimizing the number of hospital visits using digital workflow and accomplishing treatment as simply as possible is necessary [1,2]. In addition, as a minimally invasive treatment that exhibits potent effects despite a low cost, implant overdenture, is very effective for fully edentulous patients [3][4][5].…”