Implant and Prosthesis Failure Rates with Implant-Supported Maxillary Overdentures: A Systematic Review

Ghiasi, Peyman; Ahlgren, Camilla; Larsson, Christel

doi:10.11607/ijp.6905

Cited by 9 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 124 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Implant-supported maxillary overdentures vary in design, from complete palatal coverage with two to four implants as support, to "horse-shoe" shaped design supported by four to six implants or more. In addition, the type of retentive system used varies considerably from single attachments to bars connecting two or several implants in a milled bar fixed-removable hybrid design [11][12][13].…”

Section: Sci Forschenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures Compared to Complete Dentures and Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses-A Systematic Review

Ghiasi¹,

Ahlgren²,

Arnebrant³

et al. 2021

Int J Dent Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Implant-supported restorations are well-documented treatments from a clinical perspective. Analysis of their cost-effectiveness is however limited, especially for implant-supported overdentures. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the literature on cost-effectiveness regarding maxillary implant-supported overdentures compared to complete dentures and fixed implant-supported restorations.

show abstract

Section: Sci Forschenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures Compared to Complete Dentures and Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses-A Systematic Review

Ghiasi¹,

Ahlgren²,

Arnebrant³

et al. 2021

Int J Dent Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 However, the proportion of clinical studies that describe long-term outcomes of overdentures is modest amongst the currently ~1300 publications on implant-supported maxillary complete prostheses. 10,11 More robust clinical data are needed on long-term outcomes of removable implant-supported prostheses in the fully edentulous maxilla as a function of a minimum number of implants, 12,13 attachment system 14 and other clinical variables, 15 to estimate the value for money and contingent valuation of alternative prosthesis modalities. 16,17 The current investigators have previously described the clinical experiences of patients receiving a palate-free metal-reinforced maxillary overdenture retained by three implants fitted with lowprofile stud attachments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary overdenture on three implants retained by low‐profile stud attachments – A prospective cohort study

Hjortsjö

Jokstad

2022

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Clinical data are needed on long‐term outcomes of removable implant‐supported prostheses in the fully edentulous maxilla as a function of the number of implants, effects of the attachment system and other clinical variables. Objective To restore individuals with an edentate maxilla with a metal‐reinforced removable prosthesis without palatal coverage retained by low‐profile stud attachments on three implants. Methods The regional ethics committee approved a prospective cohort study that included all consecutive patients treated in a private speciality clinic. Primary outcomes were patients reported, that is denture satisfaction scale and oral health‐related quality of life – OHIP‐20. Secondary outcomes were implant‐ (bone loss, implant complications and peri‐implant conditions) and prosthesis‐related (prosthesis complications, maintenance needs and mucosa condition). Results Thirty‐two study participants were recruited between March 2007 and October 2016 and followed for a minimum of five years. According to Kruskal–Wallis tests, the OHIP‐20 and Denture Satisfaction Scale questionnaire pre‐treatment scores differed significantly. After an average of 6.7 years, peri‐implant bone loss of more than 2 mm was observed on 17% of all implants, while no or minor bone loss was seen on 38%. The estimated success of implants was 0.95 at 168 months. The estimated success of the prosthesis, that is no adverse events or need for any repairs, was 0.55 at 156 months. Conclusion The positive findings in the current clinical study strengthen the notion that for many individuals with an edentulous maxilla, a removable prosthesis retained by three implants fitted with low‐profile stud‐attachment is a reliable technical solution.

show abstract

“…The cumulative survival rate (CSR) for implant-supported maxillary overdentures in our systematic review was 79.8% after 19 years (84). High overall prosthesis survival rates of 96.9% to 100% can be obtained for implant-supported overdentures according to a recent consensus report (82).…”

Section: Survival Of Implants and Restorationsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…There was, however, a difference regarding the effect of the number of implants, where the retrospective study found no influence of the number of implants on outcome but the systematic review noted higher failure rates for ISODs supported by fewer implants. This difference might be due to the type of study, where the retrospective study represents results from only one local study whereas the review is based on several studies and is likely to be more representative (83,84).…”

Section: Survival Of Implants and Restorationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Studies on maxillary overdentures: implant- and prosthesis survival, cost analysis and patient-reported outcomes

Ghiasi¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Edentulism is a debilitating condition which may negatively affect quality of life, particularly in relation to nutritional and social health, speech, and poor facial appearance. Prosthetic options available range from conventional complete dentures to implant-supported overdentures (ISODs) and implant-supported full arch fixed partial dentures (ISFAFDPs). The choice of treatment is connected to the patient's general health, oral status, preferences and financial means. From the point of view of the treatment provider, there is a lack of evidence to support choice of treatment, as information from randomised clinical trials is sparse. This is particularly true when it comes to cost analysis and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There is consensus today that an implant-supported overdenture is a valid treatment option for the edentulous mandible, but the same recommendation cannot be made for maxillary overdentures due to a lack of evidence. The present study investigates implant-supported maxillary overdentures regarding implant and prosthesis survival, costs and PROMs in comparison to fixed implant-supported prostheses. The thesis comprises four studies.Study I analysed implant and prosthesis failure rates with implant-supported maxillary overdentures in a systematic review. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) for the implants and the prostheses was 70.4% and 79.8%, respectively. The main finding was that patients with few implants presented higher prosthesis failure rates than patients with more implants per prosthesis.Of the most commonly used attachment systems, the ball/O-ring and the Ceka were the ones with the highest rates of patients with at least one implant failure. Most of the failures happened within the first year after installation for both implants (52.1%) and prostheses (41.8%).Study II, a retrospective analysis, compared the clinical outcomes of implantsupported overdentures (ISODs) with either bar-clip or ball attachments. The results showed that all ISOD failures resulted from loss of implants. The bar-clip system resulted in more complications than the ball attachment system, suggesting that ISODs with the bar-clip system may necessitate a greater number of appointments and chair time for adjustments, thus increasing the maintenance costs for the patient.Studies III and IV were based on a prospective clinical trial comparing different implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations for the edentulous maxilla: implantsupported full-arch fixed partial dentures on 4 or 6 implants (ISFAFDP 4 orISFAFDP 6) versus maxillary overdentures on 2 implants.Study III is a comparative cost analysis, the results of which showed that all implants and restorations were in function at follow-up after the first year, i.e., the survival rate was 100%. Initial costs, i.e., cost of prostheses at delivery, were higher for ISFAFDP 6 and ISFAFDP 4 due to the higher number of implants and higher cost of materials and fees. There were no statistically significant differences in post-treatment costs between the groups.In study IV, patient-reported outcomes regarding aesthetics and function were compared. The results showed that all patients, irrespective of group, showed improved patient-reported outcomes from before treatment to the one-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups regarding functional status of the masticatory system (Jaw Functional Limitation Scale -JFLS parameters) or how patients perceive their dental and Orofacial Aesthetic Scale (OAS), and only minor differences between the two groups with fixed restorations regarding patients’ perception of the social impact of oral disorders on their well-being (Oral Health Impact Profile - OHIP).

show abstract

Implant and Prosthesis Failure Rates with Implant-Supported Maxillary Overdentures: A Systematic Review

Cited by 9 publications

References 124 publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures Compared to Complete Dentures and Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses-A Systematic Review

Cost-Effectiveness of Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures Compared to Complete Dentures and Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses-A Systematic Review

Maxillary overdenture on three implants retained by low‐profile stud attachments – A prospective cohort study

Studies on maxillary overdentures: implant- and prosthesis survival, cost analysis and patient-reported outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About