The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Francesco, Fabrizio Di; Marco, Gennaro De; Carnevale, U.A. Gironi; Lanza, Michele; Lanza, Antonio

doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2018.08.006

Cited by 37 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, three‐implant retained overdentures were fabricated in 7 of the 40 patients, including two patients who had only three implants placed during surgery and five patients who experienced failure of implants before loading and did not want to undergo additional implant placement surgeries. Since maxillary overdentures with three or fewer implants have been reported to have a significantly lower implant survival rate (Di Francesco et al, ; Sadowsky & Zitzmann, ), such patients may cause a potential bias and confuse the interpretation of the results. Therefore, these seven patients were excluded from the final observation and evaluation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, despite some laboratory studies, clinical studies have reported that splinted and non-splinted attachments may be used without significant differences in patient satisfaction (Al-Zubeidi, Alsabeeha, Thomson, & Payne, 2012), surgical outcomes (Ma, Tawse-Smith, et al, 2016) and prosthodontic outcomes (Ma, Waddell, Atieh, Alsabeeha, & Payne, 2016). Based on the results of those clinical studies, recent systematic reviews suggest four or more implants regardless of the type of attachment on the MIO (Di Francesco, De Marco, Gironi Carnevale, Lanza, & Lanza, 2019;Sadowsky & Zitzmann, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

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

“…[ 25 ] However, use of fewer implant (< 4 implants) increases the peri-implant mucosal changes and patient compliance in terms of oral hygiene maintenance are potent risk factors for failure of maxillary implant-supported overdentures. [ 33 35 36 ] The fixed restoration is more logical treatment of choice than overdenture when the situation dictates the use of 4–6 implants for maxillary overdenture,[ 26 ] as addition of two or more implant or use of zygomatic implant or angular implant favors fixed restorations than overdenture. The current scenario of zygomatic implant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

Chaware¹,

Thakkar²

2020

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction of different attachments used in implant overdenture. Settings and Design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Electronic search of peer-review articles published between 2001 and 2019 assessing the attachments used for implant-supported overdentures was done according to PRISMA Guidelies. The review evaluated sixteen articles related to survival of the attachments, the reaction of the soft and hard tissues along with repair and maintenance of the attachments, and overall performance of the overdenture attachments. Statistical Analysis Used: There is statistically significant heterogeneity (Q =374.7403, df = 15, and P < 0.0001). The statistics of fixed-effect model reported an MD of − 0.0880 (95% CI = −0.1536; 0.0225). Result: The review evaluated the 16 articles that met with the inclusion and search criteria. The studies were the combination of bar and ball attachments and their subtypes, magnetic and bar attachments, and locator in combination with other attachments. The meta-analysis of combined 16 studies reported acceptable heterogeneity among 16 studies (I 2 = 96%) and reported to be statistically significant ( P < 0.01). Conclusion: The survival rate of attachments was in the range of 95.8%–97.5% for bar, 96.2%–100% for ball, 90%–92% for magnet and locator attachments were in the range of 97% after a mean follow-up period of 3 years. The bar attachments reported moderate tissue reaction in the form of mucosal changes, gingival inflammation, and bone resorption. The locator attachments require higher maintenance and repair. The magnetic attachments produce higher bone resorption and readily displace under functional force. Patient satisfaction and compliance was higher for ball, locator, and bar attachments as well as low for magnetic attachment. Thus, the ball and locator attachments excellently perform in terms of survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction.

show abstract

“…In addition, IODs are reported to have reasonably predictable and satisfactory outcomes, especially in patients who have prior experience with unstable conventional dentures. 9 Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is a psychometrically sophisticated summary measure of perceived oral health, which captures how oral conditions and dental treatment are perceived by patients. 10 The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) has been the most widely used instrument for the evaluation of patients' OHRQoL, 11 and has been translated into a variety of languages, including Japanese.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the elderly population, an IOD is considered a standard treatment of choice for edentulous mandibles, as it is considered less complicated, less invasive, and more financially affordable. In addition, IODs are reported to have reasonably predictable and satisfactory outcomes, especially in patients who have prior experience with unstable conventional dentures …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of implant superstructure type on oral health‐related quality of life in edentulous patients

Kusumoto

Tanaka²,

Miyoshi

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The effect of the type of implant superstructure on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among edentulous patients remains controversial. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the association between the type of implant superstructure and OHRQoL. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two completely edentulous patients who received implant fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) or implant overdentures (IODs) were administered the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaire during the post-treatment maintenance period. The OHIP summary score, as well as the four dimension scores, were calculated to evaluate OHRQoL. Results: The mean OHIP summary score for the IFCD group tended to be lower than that for the IOD group, but this difference was not statistically significant (19.9 ± 21.9, 22.8 ± 18.2, respectively; P = .57). However, a significant group difference was found in the four dimension scores (P < .01), with the OHIP item scores representing masticatory function being significantly lower in the IFCD group than in the IOD group (P < .05). Conclusions: Our results suggested that patients with an IOD exhibited comparable OHRQoL to those with an IFCD, with the exception of perceived masticatory function.

show abstract

The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 37 publications

References 44 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

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

Impact of implant superstructure type on oral health‐related quality of life in edentulous patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About