24Jul 2017

THE INFLUENCE OF IMPLANT NUMBER ON PERI-IMPLANT MARGINAL BONE LEVEL AND IMPLANT FAILURES IN MANDIBULAR IMPLANT OVERDENTURES. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WITH META-ANALYSIS.

  • Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Modern Science and Arts University (MSA), Egypt.
  • Professor, Prosthodontist, Department of Removable Prosthodontics- Cairo University, Egypt.
  • Lecturer, Prosthodontist, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, IBB University, IBB, Yemen.
  • Lecturer, Prosthodontist, Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Purpose: The current systematic review evaluated influence of implant number on peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and number of implant failures in mandibular implant overdentures (MIODs). Methods: A literature search of electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane) was performed up to March 2016. The electronic search was complemented by hand search. Results: nine publications were included for quality assessment and meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed that there is significant difference in the MBL and on number of implant failures when single and 2-implants ODs were compared. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in MBL and number of implant failures when 2 versus 4-implants ODs were compared. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this meta-analysis, no recommendations could be made with regards of implant number for completely edentulous patients with MIODs. Though single implant was found to be better in terms of MBL and number of implant failures, this result should be interpreted with cautious due to limited number of analysed studies with different loading protocols and limited follow-up period.

  1. Doundoulakis JH, Eckert SE, Lindquist CC, et al. The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1455-1458.
  2. Sadowsky SJ. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2001;86:468-473.
  3. Klemetti E. Is there a certain number of implants needed to retain an overdenture? Journal of oral rehabilitation 2008;35:80-84.
  4. Gotfredsen K, Carlsson G, Jokstad A, et al. Scandinavian Society for Prosthetic Dentistry & Danish Society of Oral Implantology. Longevity of implants and⁄ or teeth: consensus statements and recommendations. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2008;35:2-8.
  5. Roccuzzo M, Bonino F, Gaudioso L, et al. What is the optimal number of implants for removable reconstructions? A systematic review on implant‐supported overdentures. Clinical oral implants research 2012;23:229-237.
  6. Tavakolizadeh S, Vafaee F, Khoshhal M, et al. Comparison of marginal bone loss and patient satisfaction in single and double-implant assisted mandibular overdenture by immediate loading. The journal of advanced prosthodontics 2015;7:191-198.
  7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine 2009;151:264-269.
  8. Higgins JP, Altman DG, G?tzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration?s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Medical Journal 2011;343:d5928.
  9. Walmsley A, Frame J. Implant supported overdentures?the Birmingham experience. Journal of dentistry 1997;25:S43-S47.
  10. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, et al. Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:953-959.
  11. Tang L, Lund J, Tache R, et al. A within-subject comparison of mandibular long-bar and hybrid implant-supported prostheses: psychometric evaluation and patient preference. Journal of dental research 1997;76:1675-1683.
  12. Solomons YF. Mandibular implant-supported overdentures: a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3 different attachment systems. The International journal of prosthodontics 2000;13:247.
  13. Timmerman R, Stoker G, Wismeijer D, et al. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of participant satisfaction with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. Journal of dental research 2004;83:630-633.
  14. Yengopal V. Implant overdentures: bar versus ball attachment for mandibular implant supported overdentures.A randomized clinical trial Evidence-Based Dentistry: 2004;59:28-31.
  15. Stoker G, Wismeijer D, Van Waas M. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of aftercare and cost-analysis with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. Journal of dental research 2007;86:276-280.
  16. MacEntee M. Mandibular overdentures retained by a bar on two implants need less aftercare and costs less than overdentures retained by two bars on three implants or by ball attachments on two implants. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice 2008;8:76-77.
  17. Burns DR, Unger JW, Coffey JP, et al. Randomized, prospective, clinical evaluation of prosthodontic modalities for mandibular implant overdenture treatment. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2011;106:12-22.
  18. Elsyad MA, Hegazy SA, Hammouda NI, et al. Chewing efficiency and electromyographic activity of masseter muscle with three designs of implant‐supported mandibular overdentures. A cross‐over study. Clinical oral implants research 2014;25:742-748.
  19. Karbach J, Hartmann S, Jahn-Eimermacher A, et al. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Edentulous Patients with Two-vs Four-Locator-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Study. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2015;30.
  20. Mau J, Behneke A, Behneke N, et al. Randomized multicenter comparison of 2 IMZ and 4 TPS screw implants supporting bar-retained overdentures in 425 edentulous mandibles. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2003;18.
  21. Schwartz-Arad D, Kidron N, Dolev E. A long-term study of implants supporting overdentures as a model for implant success. Journal of periodontology 2005;76:1431-1435.
  22. Visser A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, et al. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants. A 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 200716:19-25.
  23. Strong S. Attachment-retained overdentures: the most cost-effective implant solution for the edentulous arch. General dentistry 2008;57:112-117.
  24. Balaguer J, Garc?a B, Pe?arrocha M, et al. Satisfaction of patients fitted with implant-retained overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:204-209.
  25. Ueda T, Kremer U, Katsoulis J, et al. Long-term results of mandibular implants supporting an overdenture: implant survival, failures, and crestal bone level changes. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2011;26.
  26. Karabuda C, Yaltrk M, Bayraktar M. A clinical comparison of prosthetic complications of implant-supported overdentures with different attachment systems. Implant dentistry 2008;17:74-81.
  27. Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, et al. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants: a 10-year clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:722-728.
  28. Batenburg RH, Raghoebar GM, Van Oort RP, et al. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosteal implants. A prospective, comparative study. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 1998;27:435-439.
  29. de Jong MH, Wright PS, Meijer HJ, et al. Posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption in patients with overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants in a 10-year prospective comparative study. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2010;25.
  30. Stoker G, van Waas R, Wismeijer D. Long‐term outcomes of three types of implant‐supported mandibular overdentures in smokers. Clinical Oral Implants Research 201223:925-929.
  31. Talawy DBE, Ali SM. A two-year randomized clinical trial of one versus two implants retaining a mandibular overdenture with locator attachment. Egyptian Dental journal 2015;61.
  32. Elawady DM, Kaddah A, Omar H, Naby NA. impact of single versus two implants on the bone height loss and bone density for patients restored by implant-retained mandibular overdentures. EDJ 2016;62.
  33. Bryant S, Walton J, MacEntee M. A 5-y randomized trial to compare 1 or 2 implants for implant overdentures. Journal of dental research 2014.
  34. Kronstrom M, Davis B, Loney R, et al. A Prospective Randomized Study on the Immediate Loading of Mandibular Overdentures Supported by One or Two Implants; A 3 Year Follow‐Up Report. Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2014;16:323-329.
  35. Visser A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, et al. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants. A 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:19-25.
  36. Wismeijer Dv, Van Waas M, Vermeeren J, et al. Patients' perception of sensory disturbances of the mental nerve before and after implant surgery: a prospective study of 110 patients. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1997;35:254-259.
  37. Wismeijer D, Van Waas MA, Mulder J, et al. Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with three treatment modalities for overdentures on implants of the ITI? Dental Implant System. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical oral implants research 1999;10:297-306.
  38. Kronstrom M, Davis B, Loney R, et al. A prospective randomized study on the immediate loading of mandibular overdentures supported by one or two implants: a 12-month follow-up report. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2010;25.
  39. Walton JN, Glick N, Macentee MI. A randomized clinical trial comparing patient satisfaction and prosthetic outcomes with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:331-339.
  40. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, et al. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants 1986;1:11-25.
  41. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Dula K, et al. Clinical experience with one-stage, non-submerged dental implants. Advances in dental research 1999;13:153-161.
  42. Liu J, Pan S, Dong J, et al. Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Journal of dentistry 2013;41:241-249.
  43. Maeda Y, Horisaka M, Yagi K. Biomechanical rationale for a single implant retained mandibular overdenture: an in vitro study. Clinical oral implants research 2008;19:271-275.
  44. SEWERIN IP. Errors in radiographic assessment of marginal bone height around osseointegrated implants. European Journal of Oral Sciences 1990;98:428-433.

[Dina Mohamed Ahmed Elawady, Amal Fathy Kaddah, Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi and Reham B Osman. (2017); THE INFLUENCE OF IMPLANT NUMBER ON PERI-IMPLANT MARGINAL BONE LEVEL AND IMPLANT FAILURES IN MANDIBULAR IMPLANT OVERDENTURES. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WITH META-ANALYSIS. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Jul). 1326-1334] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Dina Elawady
Lecturer

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/4843      
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/4843

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 16 | No. of Views: 98