Interventions for replacing missing teeth: attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws

Payne, Alan G. T.; Alsabeeha, Nabeel H. M.; Atieh, Momen A.; Esposito, Marco; Ma, Sunyoung; El-Wegoud, Marwah Anas

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008001.pub2

Cited by 43 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, until now, there has only been one RCT that compares splinted and non‐splinted attachment systems on MIOs using four or more implants (Zou et al, ), and this RCT only compared locators, telescopes and bar attachments for 10 patients in each experimental group. Therefore, the optimal type of attachment system for MIOs is still unclear, and further research is required (Payne et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bar versus ball attachments for maxillary four‐implant retained overdentures: A randomized controlled trial

Park

Shin

Lee

2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the clinical treatment outcomes of maxillary four‐implant retained overdentures with either splinted (bar) attachments or non‐splinted (ball) attachments. Material and Methods Forty participants who were dissatisfied with their existing conventional maxillary complete dentures were included in this randomized controlled trial. Six months after implant placement, a definitive prosthesis was inserted. Implant success, condition of peri‐implant tissue, prosthodontic maintenance and complications, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Outcomes were recorded at baseline, prosthesis delivery, and at 3 and 12 months following prosthesis delivery, and a statistical analysis was performed. Results Thirty‐two of the forty patients completed the 1‐year follow‐up and had their treatment outcomes evaluated. The mean marginal bone loss after 1 year of loading was 0.34 ± 0.88 mm, and there were no significant differences between the two groups. Plaque index, gingival index and bleeding on probing were significantly higher in the bar group (p<.001), and the implant success rate of the bar group was significantly lower than that of the ball group (p=.028). The most frequent prosthodontic maintenance and complication issue was the need to change the bar clip or O‐ring as a result of retention loss. Patient satisfaction did not differ between the two groups except for aesthetics at 3 months. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the maxillary 4‐implant retained overdenture exhibited predictable results regardless of the attachment systems (ball or bar) in the 1‐year follow‐up period. The bar group was more vulnerable than the ball group with respect to maintaining peri‐implant tissue health.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bar versus ball attachments for maxillary four‐implant retained overdentures: A randomized controlled trial

Park

Shin

Lee

2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is insufficient evidence available to determine a preferred attachment system based on prosthetic success or maintenance. 16 Research concerning retention or patient satisfaction, comparing bar and ball systems, yields insufficient evidence to support one or the other system. 17 Depending on the attachment system, different types of complications are reported.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Five years follow‐up of mandibular 2‐implant overdentures on locator or ball abutments: Implant results, patient‐related outcome, and prosthetic aftercare

Matthys

Vervaeke

Besseler³

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is uncertain, which is the optimal attachment for a mandibular 2‐implant overdenture (2IOD). Purpose To assess 5 years clinical implant outcome, prosthetic maintenance, cost, and PROMs of two cohorts receiving 2IOD on ball or stud abutments in a comparative study. Materials and Methods Ninety edentulous individuals were treated with balls (n = 34) or locator (n = 56). Implant survival, bone‐to‐implant level, prosthetic outcome, technical maintenance, and OHIP‐14 were assessed. Statistics to compare between baseline and 1/5 years and between groups were t‐test or Mann‐Whitney (P < .05); chi‐square was adopted to analyze plaque and technical maintenance or interventions between groups. Results Five years implant survival was 98.7%, irrespective of attachment. Overall mean bone loss was 1.1 mm, probing pocket depth 1.92 mm, bleeding score 0.60, plaque score 1. Plaque accumulated more on locators (P = .023). OHIP‐14 declined from 18.1 to 2.7 irrespective of attachment. Retention for balls was better (P < .005), locators required more maintenance (P < .001), caused by retention‐adjustment (P < .001) or ulcers/pain (P = .014). Five years maintenance‐cost was 11% of initial cost, irrespective of attachment. Conclusions Balls and locators yield stable 5‐years implant outcome and improved Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Locators required more maintenance and resulted in a lower retention. Maintenance costs are minimal but may affect OHRQoL at least for stud abutments.

show abstract

“…Gemäß einem Cochrane Review gibt es aktuell für den zahnlosen Unterkiefer nur unzureichende Evidenz hinsichtlich eines zu bevorzugenden Attachmentsystems, während für den zahnlosen Oberkiefer keine Evidenz vorliegt [35]. Zu ähnlichen Ergebnissen kommen sowohl eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit, die unzureichende Evidenz für Steg-vs. Kugelkopfverankerung bei zahnlosen Patienten hinsichtlich Patientenzufriedenheit und Prothesenhalt fand [36], als auch eine klinische Studie, die über keinen Unterschied hinsichtlich prothetischer Komplikationsraten bei Steg vs. Kugelkopfanker berichtete [37].…”

Section: Schlussfolgerungenunclassified

Primär- versus sekundärverblockte Versorgung zahnloser Patienten

Grobecker‐Karl¹,

Steiner²,

Karl³

2020

ZWR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws

Abstract: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws (Review)

Cited by 43 publications

References 82 publications

Bar versus ball attachments for maxillary four‐implant retained overdentures: A randomized controlled trial

Bar versus ball attachments for maxillary four‐implant retained overdentures: A randomized controlled trial

Five years follow‐up of mandibular 2‐implant overdentures on locator or ball abutments: Implant results, patient‐related outcome, and prosthetic aftercare

Primär- versus sekundärverblockte Versorgung zahnloser Patienten

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About