Prosthetic maintenance of different mandibular implant overdentures: A systematic review

Assaf, André; Daas, Marwan; Boittin, Adeline; Eid, Nicolas; Postaire, M.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.037

Cited by 43 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Osman, et al 29 (2014) suggested that a higher rate of fractures of overdenture must be expected if the denture base is not reinforced, particularly if the size of the matrix attachment is relatively large. In a systematic review, Assaf, et al 30 (2017) evaluated the types of maintenance and complications in MOD with a variable number of implants and found evidence that a mean complication rate cannot be determined due to the multiplicity of contributing factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One-year prospective clinical study comparing patient satisfaction and masticatory performance of mandibular overdentures supported by one versus two implants

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a lack of clinical evidence on mandibular overdentures (MOD) supported by a single implant.Objective:To compare patient satisfaction and masticatory performance in MOD supported by one versus two implants in a two-group parallel randomized clinical trial.Material and Methods:Twenty-one patients wearing new maxillary and mandibular complete dentures (CDs) were randomly divided to receive one (GI, n = 11) or two (GII, n = 10) implants in the mandibular arch. Four months after implant placement, o-ring abutments were installed in the implants, and matrix attachments were placed in the lower complete dentures. Patient satisfaction with their dentures and masticatory performance were compared at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure. Data on patient satisfaction were analyzed using the Friedman test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Data on masticatory performance were analyzed using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student's t test (α=0.05).Results:Both groups exhibited a significant increase in overall patient satisfaction in all periods evaluated (p<0.05), except for GI after 12 months, which had values similar to baseline (p=0.74). Satisfaction levels of GI and GII were similar at baseline, 3 and 6 months, but GII showed higher satisfaction levels (p=0.01) than GI at 12 months. GI and GII exhibited a significant increase (p<0.05) in masticatory performance for all periods relative to baseline. However, GII had higher masticatory performance with dentures than GI, regardless of the period (p<0.05).Conclusion:MOD supported by two implants demonstrated better patient satisfaction in the follow-up at 12 months and better masticatory performance than MOD supported by one implant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One-year prospective clinical study comparing patient satisfaction and masticatory performance of mandibular overdentures supported by one versus two implants

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is obvious that technical complications may affect the long-term cost but unfortunately information on the cost of prosthetic complications is often underreported (Fernandez-Estevan et al, 2017). There is a further need for more long-term evidence on maintenance requirements and this with respect to patient factors such as implant position, the connection technique and the opposing arch (Assaf, Daas, Boittin, Eid, & Postaire, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five‐year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance—Influence of bone resorption and implant position

Matthys

Vervaeke

Besseler³

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This prospective study analyses the 5‐year clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and the technical outcome of a 2‐implant overdenture on stud abutments. In addition, the influence of mandibular resorption and implant position on these outcomes was assessed. Material and methods Patients received two implants in a one‐stage delayed protocol. Final prosthesis on stud abutments was finalized after 3 months. Implant survival, bone loss, plaque and sulcus bleeding index, OHIP‐14, technical outcome and costs were assessed after 5 years. The Cawood–Howell classification defined the mandibular resorption. Inter‐implant distances and angles (frontal, sagittal) were digitally measured. The significance level was p < .05. Results Fifty‐six patients, 23 female and 33 males (mean age = 66.3, range 41–82), completed the follow‐up. No implants were lost. Radiographical crestal bone loss was on average 1.25 mm (standard deviation SD 1.06), bleeding index was 0.75 (SD 0.73), and plaque index was 1.15 (SD 0.75) and higher for low mandibles (p = .001). The OHIP‐14 reduction post‐connection and after 5 years was significant (p < .001). Five‐year maintenance required on average 6.7 (SD 4.8, range 0–25) interventions per patient. A larger inter‐implant distance was associated with fewer replacement of retention inserts (p = .034) and less interventions (p = .006). Larger frontal (p = .023) and sagittal (p = .046) inter‐implant angles (non‐parallelism) required more inserts. The maintenance cost negatively influences the patient satisfaction (p = .004). 83% of the stud abutments showed wear. Conclusion The implant overdenture on cylindrical stud abutments is a good and stable solution, irrespective of the resorption profile of the mandible. OHIP‐14 improved permanently up to 5 years but is negatively influenced by complication cost. A small inter‐implant distance, more frontal, sagittal inter‐implant divergence increased maintenance.

show abstract

“…Finally, no IMO retention system is free from complications and prosthetic maintenance events, especially in the first year of rehabilitation 13,14 . Thus, clinicians should be aware of the incidence rates as a function of degree of alveolar ridge resorption during rehabilitation of totally edentulous patients, so that they can accurately predict future laboratory time and costs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Masticatory function and oral health‐related quality of life of patients with atrophic and non‐atrophic mandibles using implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 3‐year results of a prospective clinical study

Schuster

Possebon

Marcello-Machado

et al. 2020

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Long‐term changes in masticatory function, oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) and prosthetic complications in implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (IMO) wearers as a function of bone atrophy require detailed investigations. Objective Investigating the evolution of masticatory function, OHRQoL and prosthetic occurrences of IMO wearers according to mandibular bone atrophy over 3 years of usage. Methods This study evaluated 26 IMO wearers after 2 and 3 years of IMO loading categorised according to mandibular resorption degree into atrophic mandible (AM) and a non‐atrophic mandible (NAM) group. Masticatory function was assessed by the Masticatory Performance (MP) and Swallowing Threshold (ST) tests; OHRQoL and satisfaction via the Dental Impact on Daily Living (DIDL) questionnaire; and the prosthetic maintenance requirements and complications were monitored. Results After the second year, the AM Group performed 32% more cycles (P = .047) than the NAM Group during the ST test. The DIDL questionnaire showed no significant difference for all domains, except for a moderate effect size in the General Performance domain after the third year. AM Group had more prosthetic occurrences (n = 109) than NAM Group (n = 60) in the first year, mainly due to Equator attachment dislodgment. During the third year, NAM Group presented a greater number of events (n = 45) than AM Group (n = 21) due to the greater number of O‐ring exchanges. Conclusion Masticatory function and OHRQoL are not related to mandibular bone atrophy until 3 years after IMO rehabilitation. The prosthetic complications profile differs between groups, mainly in the first year.

show abstract

Prosthetic maintenance of different mandibular implant overdentures: A systematic review

Cited by 43 publications

References 34 publications

One-year prospective clinical study comparing patient satisfaction and masticatory performance of mandibular overdentures supported by one versus two implants

One-year prospective clinical study comparing patient satisfaction and masticatory performance of mandibular overdentures supported by one versus two implants

Five‐year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance—Influence of bone resorption and implant position

Masticatory function and oral health‐related quality of life of patients with atrophic and non‐atrophic mandibles using implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 3‐year results of a prospective clinical study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About