Taghrid Aldhohrah1, Mubarak Ahmed Mashrah2, Yan Wang3. 1. Postgraduate student, Department of Prosthodontic, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China. 2. Assistant professor, Key Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China. 3. Professor, Department of Prosthodontic, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China. Electronic address: wangyan9@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A systematic review of the effect of different overdenture attachments with different loading protocols on peri-implant health is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of different overdenture attachments with delayed or immediately loaded 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures on peri-implant tissue health. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The outcomes were marginal bone loss, probing depth, plaque index, bleeding on probing, implant survival rate, and prosthetic complications. The Bayesian network meta-analysis accompanied by a random effect model and 95% credible intervals was calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen RCT (n=599 participants receiving 1198 dental implants) were included. Five common overdenture attachment systems with delayed or immediate loading were compared. The difference in marginal bone loss and probing depth was not statistically significant when comparing different overdenture attachments with different loading protocols. The rank probability test showed that bar+ immediate loading ranked highest (63.8%) in terms of marginal bone loss, whereas ball+ delayed loading (73.3%) ranked highest in terms of probing depth. The implant survival rate was 100% for the LOCATOR+ delayed loading, resilient telescopic+ delayed loading, and magnet+ immediate loading; however, bar+ delayed loading, ball+ delayed loading, magnet+ delayed loading, LOCATOR+ immediate loading, ball+ immediate loading, and bar+ immediate loading had survival rates of 99.1%, 98.8%, 96.0%, 94.7%, 93.1%, and 91.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All types of overdenture attachment with immediate loading or delayed loading had a similar effect on peri-implant health. Bar+ immediate loading was associated with the least marginal bone loss, whereas ball+ delayed loading showed the least probing depth.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A systematic review of the effect of different overdenture attachments with different loading protocols on peri-implant health is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of different overdenture attachments with delayed or immediately loaded 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures on peri-implant tissue health. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The outcomes were marginal bone loss, probing depth, plaque index, bleeding on probing, implant survival rate, and prosthetic complications. The Bayesian network meta-analysis accompanied by a random effect model and 95% credible intervals was calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen RCT (n=599 participants receiving 1198 dental implants) were included. Five common overdenture attachment systems with delayed or immediate loading were compared. The difference in marginal bone loss and probing depth was not statistically significant when comparing different overdenture attachments with different loading protocols. The rank probability test showed that bar+ immediate loading ranked highest (63.8%) in terms of marginal bone loss, whereas ball+ delayed loading (73.3%) ranked highest in terms of probing depth. The implant survival rate was 100% for the LOCATOR+ delayed loading, resilient telescopic+ delayed loading, and magnet+ immediate loading; however, bar+ delayed loading, ball+ delayed loading, magnet+ delayed loading, LOCATOR+ immediate loading, ball+ immediate loading, and bar+ immediate loading had survival rates of 99.1%, 98.8%, 96.0%, 94.7%, 93.1%, and 91.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All types of overdenture attachment with immediate loading or delayed loading had a similar effect on peri-implant health. Bar+ immediate loading was associated with the least marginal bone loss, whereas ball+ delayed loading showed the least probing depth.