Li Zhang1, Chunxiao Lyu1, Zhenzhen Shang1, Aidi Niu1, Xing Liang2. 1. Graduate Student, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Professor, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) associated with an implant-supported overdenture (IOD) compared with a conventional complete denture (CCD) in restoring the edentulous mandible. METHODS: A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE (through Ovid), PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published between 1990 and July 2016. The search was restricted to articles published in English. Two reviewers selected the articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Another 2 reviewers analyzed the data. RESULTS: From 108 articles that were obtained, 5 articles met the inclusion criteria. Four studies had a high risk of bias, and 1 study had an unclear risk of bias. There was a significant difference in Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) scores between pre- and post-treatment within the groups and in posttreatment OHIP scores between IOD and CCD groups. CONCLUSION: Regarding the edentulous mandible, patients benefited more from the IOD with 2 implants, as determined by OHRQoL scores. Considering the differences between each domain of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaire and the lack of long-term performance, more random control trials with sufficient sample sizes need to be designed to investigate long-term performance after treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) associated with an implant-supported overdenture (IOD) compared with a conventional complete denture (CCD) in restoring the edentulous mandible. METHODS: A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE (through Ovid), PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published between 1990 and July 2016. The search was restricted to articles published in English. Two reviewers selected the articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Another 2 reviewers analyzed the data. RESULTS: From 108 articles that were obtained, 5 articles met the inclusion criteria. Four studies had a high risk of bias, and 1 study had an unclear risk of bias. There was a significant difference in Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) scores between pre- and post-treatment within the groups and in posttreatment OHIP scores between IOD and CCD groups. CONCLUSION: Regarding the edentulous mandible, patients benefited more from the IOD with 2 implants, as determined by OHRQoL scores. Considering the differences between each domain of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaire and the lack of long-term performance, more random control trials with sufficient sample sizes need to be designed to investigate long-term performance after treatment.