Implant‐supported removable partial dentures compared to conventional dentures: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and biomechanical complications

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) with distal extension removable partial dentures (DERPDs) in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs: patients' quality of life and satisfaction) and to determine mechanical and biological complications associated with ISRPDs.Material and Methods: An electronic search was performed on four databases to identify studies treating Kennedy class I or II edentulous patients and which compared ISRPDs with DERPDs in terms of PROMS and studies, which evaluated mechanical and biological complications associated ISRPDs. Two authors independently extracted data on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and biomechanical complications from these studies. The risk of bias was assessed for each study, and for PROMs, the authors performed a meta-analysis by using a random-effects model.Results: Thirteen articles were included based on the selection criteria. The difference in mean scores for quality of life (30.5 ± 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.9-36.1) and patient satisfaction (−20.8 ± 0.2; 95% CI, −23.7 to −17.8) between treatments with conventional and implant-supported removable dentures was statistically significant (p < .05). Implant-supported removable dentures improved patients' overall quality of life and satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications, such as clasp adjustment, abutment or implant loosening, marginal bone resorption, and peri-implant mucositis, were noted in ISRPDs during patient follow-up. Studies assessing PROMs were very heterogeneous (I 2 = 65%, p = .85; I 2 = 75%, p = .88).Conclusions: ISRPDs significantly improved quality of life and patient satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications have been associated with ISRPDs treatment, requiring regular monitoring of patients to avoid the occurrence of these complications.

Oral Rehabilitation of Down Syndrome Patients by Dental Implants: A Systematic Review

“…The oral rehabilitation of DS patients has always been a challenge due to the myriad of systemic, functional and behavioral obstacles to overcome. Although the conventional removable prosthodontics can provide a relatively simple solution, their low level of comfort, aesthetics and function as well as increased alveolar bone resorption and biomechanical failures make them more of a hinderance to the patient [27]. Therefore, implant supported prosthodontics have made their way to the therapeutic arsenal aimed at providing the best care from modern dentistry to DS patients, on par with nonsyndromic patients.…”

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the implants applied to implant assisted removable partial dentures as surveyed crowns

“…Also, biological complications such as marginal bone resorption around implants have been reported. The average marginal bone resorption ranged between 0.64 and 2 mm 19,20 . Considering the various clinical results, properly planned IARPDs with implant attachments did not compromise the longevity of implants 19 .…”

Impact of Removable Partial Denture on Mastication and Oral Health Related Quality of Life in Patients With Shortened Dental Arch

“…Rehabilitation options for partially edentulous patients include implant-supported removable partial dentures(RPDs), implant-supported fixed prostheses, cantilevered fixed prostheses, and conventional RPD. RPD is most common as it is inexpensive, non-invasive, and simple, though it is associated with a high risk of caries and periodontal disease in the abutment teeth (Bandiaky et al, 2022). Due to sufficient retentive capacity, the SDA concept was introduced, in which missing posterior teeth were replaced till second premolars, ideally in patients with four occlusal units.…”