G Sivaramakrishnan1, K Sridharan2. 1. Department of Oral Health, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji. 2. Department of Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional complete dentures and implant supported overdentures are commonly used by dentists to treat completely edentulous mandibular arches. There have been problems associated with retention and stability while treating completely edentulous mandibular arches compared to maxillary arches. Many factors have been attributed to this, primarily focusing on the decreased area available for support and increased resorption. Implant supported overdentures have increased the treatment options for resorbed ridges, especially the mandible. However, no reports have proved the superiority of one treatment option over the other, especially in terms of patient-centric outcome measures such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Hence, this meta-analysis was conducted. METHODS: A literature search of Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was performed. The reviewers screened titles, abstracts and performed full-text screening of eligible studies. The references from these studies were further screened for additional relevant studies. A random effects model was applied to measure the significance of the per cent mean difference in OHIP scale improvement between implant and conventional dentures. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was applied to assess the selection, ascertainment and selective reporting biases. RESULTS: Five studies were reviewed and identified. Results of 441 patients (228 implant and 213 conventional) were pooled for analysis of primary outcome and other secondary outcomes. A forest plot of total OHIP scores and for secondary outcomes were obtained between the interventions. Results of 441 patients (228 implant and 213 conventional) were pooled for analysis of primary outcome with a mean difference [95% confidence interval] in the score of -30.72[-48.39, -13.05]; mean difference [95% confidence interval] in the score of -26.45[-43.56, -9.35] for functional limitation; -29.16[-60.89, 2.56] for physical pain; -77.61[-154.63, -0.60] for psychological discomfort; -33.70[-47.96, -19.44] for physical disability; -41.17[-55.93, -26.40] for psychological disability; -17.27[-29.44, 5.10] for social disability; and -28.45[-33.97, -22.92] for handicap. A statistically significant difference favouring the implant group was obtained except for physical pain. CONCLUSIONS: The implant overdenture group performed better in regard to patient satisfaction as measured using the OHIP questionnaire. Further studies are required to identify superiority between the two treatment options.
BACKGROUND: Conventional complete dentures and implant supported overdentures are commonly used by dentists to treat completely edentulous mandibular arches. There have been problems associated with retention and stability while treating completely edentulous mandibular arches compared to maxillary arches. Many factors have been attributed to this, primarily focusing on the decreased area available for support and increased resorption. Implant supported overdentures have increased the treatment options for resorbed ridges, especially the mandible. However, no reports have proved the superiority of one treatment option over the other, especially in terms of patient-centric outcome measures such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Hence, this meta-analysis was conducted. METHODS: A literature search of Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was performed. The reviewers screened titles, abstracts and performed full-text screening of eligible studies. The references from these studies were further screened for additional relevant studies. A random effects model was applied to measure the significance of the per cent mean difference in OHIP scale improvement between implant and conventional dentures. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was applied to assess the selection, ascertainment and selective reporting biases. RESULTS: Five studies were reviewed and identified. Results of 441 patients (228 implant and 213 conventional) were pooled for analysis of primary outcome and other secondary outcomes. A forest plot of total OHIP scores and for secondary outcomes were obtained between the interventions. Results of 441 patients (228 implant and 213 conventional) were pooled for analysis of primary outcome with a mean difference [95% confidence interval] in the score of -30.72[-48.39, -13.05]; mean difference [95% confidence interval] in the score of -26.45[-43.56, -9.35] for functional limitation; -29.16[-60.89, 2.56] for physical pain; -77.61[-154.63, -0.60] for psychological discomfort; -33.70[-47.96, -19.44] for physical disability; -41.17[-55.93, -26.40] for psychological disability; -17.27[-29.44, 5.10] for social disability; and -28.45[-33.97, -22.92] for handicap. A statistically significant difference favouring the implant group was obtained except for physical pain. CONCLUSIONS: The implant overdenture group performed better in regard to patient satisfaction as measured using the OHIP questionnaire. Further studies are required to identify superiority between the two treatment options.
Authors: Samir Abou-Ayash; Nadine von Maltzahn; Nicole Passia; Sandra Freitag-Wolf; Daniel R Reissmann; Ralph G Luthardt; Torsten Mundt; Michael Raedel; Peter Rammelsberg; Stefan Wolfart; Matthias Kern Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Livia Fernandes Probst; Tazio Vanni; Denise de Fátima Barros Cavalcante; Erica Tatiane da Silva; Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti; Luis Augusto Passeri; Antonio Carlos Pereira Journal: Rev Saude Publica Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 2.106