Ahmad Kutkut1, Elizangela Bertoli2, Robert Frazer3, Gitanjali Pinto-Sinai2, Rodrigo Fuentealba Hidalgo3, Jamie Studts4. 1. Division of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. Electronic address: ahmad.kutkut@uky.edu. 2. Division of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 3. Division of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 4. Department of Behavioral Science, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several studies reported better outcomes when restoring edentulous mandible with unsplinted IODs compared to CCDs; however, it is not clear if these outcomes remain when the full literature is considered. The aim of this systematic review is to compare conventional complete dentures (CCDs) to unsplinted implant-retained overdentures (IODs) with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life. STUDY SELECTION: The main question addressed was: How do CCDs compare to unsplinted IODs with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life? Three databases were electronically searched to identify articles comparing CCD to unsplinted IOD. Twenty-six articles were selected and reviewed in full. Of these selected articles, twenty-five compared CCDs restoring function in both arches to a maxillary CCD opposing a mandibular IOD retained by two unsplinted implants. Only one articles compared a maxillary CCDs to a maxillary IOD. RESULTS: Outcome measures varied among the studies, including the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), visual analogue scales (VAS), and masticatory performance tests. Overall, IODs were associated with significantly better patient's masticatory performance and quality of life as indicated by Oral Health as Related to Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Mandibular unsplinted IODs were more likely than CCDs to be associated with improved OHRQoL for edentulous patients and were associated with significantly higher ratings of overall satisfaction, comfort, stability, ability to speak and ability to chew. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this systematic review indicate the superiority of IODs retained by two unsplinted mandibular implants when compared to CCDs with regards to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life.
PURPOSE: Several studies reported better outcomes when restoring edentulous mandible with unsplinted IODs compared to CCDs; however, it is not clear if these outcomes remain when the full literature is considered. The aim of this systematic review is to compare conventional complete dentures (CCDs) to unsplinted implant-retained overdentures (IODs) with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life. STUDY SELECTION: The main question addressed was: How do CCDs compare to unsplinted IODs with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life? Three databases were electronically searched to identify articles comparing CCD to unsplinted IOD. Twenty-six articles were selected and reviewed in full. Of these selected articles, twenty-five compared CCDs restoring function in both arches to a maxillary CCD opposing a mandibular IOD retained by two unsplinted implants. Only one articles compared a maxillary CCDs to a maxillary IOD. RESULTS: Outcome measures varied among the studies, including the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), visual analogue scales (VAS), and masticatory performance tests. Overall, IODs were associated with significantly better patient's masticatory performance and quality of life as indicated by Oral Health as Related to Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Mandibular unsplinted IODs were more likely than CCDs to be associated with improved OHRQoL for edentulouspatients and were associated with significantly higher ratings of overall satisfaction, comfort, stability, ability to speak and ability to chew. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this systematic review indicate the superiority of IODs retained by two unsplinted mandibular implants when compared to CCDs with regards to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life.
Authors: Salwa Omar Bajunaid; Abdullah S Alshahrani; Ahad A Aldosari; Atheer N Almojel; Rehab S Alanazi; Tala M Alsulaim; Syed Rashid Habib Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 3.390