Luis Eduardo Carneiro-Campos1, Liana B Freitas-Fernandes2, Daniele Masterson3, Marcela Baraúna Magno4, Claudio Pinheiro Fernandes5, Lucianne Cople Maia4, Darceny Zanetta-Barbosa6. 1. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia (UFU), Uberlandia, Brazil. Electronic address: leduardo@id.uff.br. 2. Researcher, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3. Librarian, Health Sciences Center Central Library, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 4. Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 5. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University (UFF), Nova Friburgó, Brazil. 6. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia (UFU), Uberlandia, Brazil.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Consensus is lacking regarding the influence of the maxillary dentition on the survival rate of a mandibular metal-resin implant-supported fixed complete denture (MRISFCD) with distal cantilevers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify whether an opposing natural dentition influences the survival rate of mandibular MRISFCDs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed up to February 2018 from MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, BBO/LILACS databases and also in the non-peer-reviewed literature through Open Grey. Clinical studies regarding natural (ND), removable prostheses (RP), and complete fixed maxillary implant dentitions (ID) with at least a year of follow-up were included. The quality of the included studies was analyzed, and the risk of bias was reported. A meta-analysis comparing the survival rate of ND with RP and ND with ID was performed with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%, and heterogeneity was tested by an I2 index. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: From a total of 112 ND, 69 ID, and 204 RP in the maxillary dentition, the overall prevalence of failures was 5.4% (6/112; 95% CI [2.3 to 10.76]) for ND, 13.99% (20/69; 95% CI [0.77 to 39.41]) for ID, and 4.9% (10/204; 95% CI [0.69 to 12.18]) for RP. No statistical differences were detected in the success rates between ND and RP (risk difference = 0.00 [-0.06, 0.06]; P=.93; I2=27%) or between ND and ID (risk difference=0.00 [-0.06, 0.07]; P=.97; I2=0%), both with moderate evidence. CONCLUSION: With a moderate certainty of evidence, it is suggested that natural maxillary dentitions do not affect the survival rate of mandibular MRISFCDs differently from other prosthetic designs.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Consensus is lacking regarding the influence of the maxillary dentition on the survival rate of a mandibular metal-resin implant-supported fixed complete denture (MRISFCD) with distal cantilevers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify whether an opposing natural dentition influences the survival rate of mandibular MRISFCDs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed up to February 2018 from MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, BBO/LILACS databases and also in the non-peer-reviewed literature through Open Grey. Clinical studies regarding natural (ND), removable prostheses (RP), and complete fixed maxillary implant dentitions (ID) with at least a year of follow-up were included. The quality of the included studies was analyzed, and the risk of bias was reported. A meta-analysis comparing the survival rate of ND with RP and ND with ID was performed with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%, and heterogeneity was tested by an I2 index. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: From a total of 112 ND, 69 ID, and 204 RP in the maxillary dentition, the overall prevalence of failures was 5.4% (6/112; 95% CI [2.3 to 10.76]) for ND, 13.99% (20/69; 95% CI [0.77 to 39.41]) for ID, and 4.9% (10/204; 95% CI [0.69 to 12.18]) for RP. No statistical differences were detected in the success rates between ND and RP (risk difference = 0.00 [-0.06, 0.06]; P=.93; I2=27%) or between ND and ID (risk difference=0.00 [-0.06, 0.07]; P=.97; I2=0%), both with moderate evidence. CONCLUSION: With a moderate certainty of evidence, it is suggested that natural maxillary dentitions do not affect the survival rate of mandibular MRISFCDs differently from other prosthetic designs.