Ye Bi1, Taghrid Aldhohrah2, Mubarak Ahmed Mashrah1, Yucheng Su3, Zhe Yang1, Xueqi Guo1, Linhu Ge1, Liping Wang1. 1. Key Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 2. Department of Prosthodontic, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Dental Implantology of Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of overdenture (OD) attachment type and the number of implants supporting mandibular ODs on peri-implant health. STUDY SELECTION: From inception to October 2020, electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) were systematically searched. The outcomes of interest were marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), plaque index, bleeding index, and implant survival rate. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the GeMTC package supported by R. The weighted mean difference and 95% credible interval were estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies with a total of 1166 participants who received 2666 dental implants were included. Except for 4 bar and 4 telescopic, which showed a statistically lower MBL than the 2 locator, all other interventions showed insignificant differences in MBL (P > 0.05). The difference in periodontal probing depth was not statistically significant when comparing the different groups. The pooled implant survival rates of the different interventions ranged from 88.9% to 100%. The rank probability test showed that 4 bar and 4 telescopic had the lowest MBL, 2 magnet and 2 bar had the highest PI, whereas 4 locator showed the least PPD. CONCLUSION: Except for 4 implants+bar, or telescopic, and 4 locator that, respectively, showed less MBL and PPD compared to some interventions, it seemed that different attachment types and number of implants supporting mandibular ODs have no clear superiority over the other in terms of peri-implant health outcomes.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of overdenture (OD) attachment type and the number of implants supporting mandibular ODs on peri-implant health. STUDY SELECTION: From inception to October 2020, electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) were systematically searched. The outcomes of interest were marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), plaque index, bleeding index, and implant survival rate. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the GeMTC package supported by R. The weighted mean difference and 95% credible interval were estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies with a total of 1166 participants who received 2666 dental implants were included. Except for 4 bar and 4 telescopic, which showed a statistically lower MBL than the 2 locator, all other interventions showed insignificant differences in MBL (P > 0.05). The difference in periodontal probing depth was not statistically significant when comparing the different groups. The pooled implant survival rates of the different interventions ranged from 88.9% to 100%. The rank probability test showed that 4 bar and 4 telescopic had the lowest MBL, 2 magnet and 2 bar had the highest PI, whereas 4 locator showed the least PPD. CONCLUSION: Except for 4 implants+bar, or telescopic, and 4 locator that, respectively, showed less MBL and PPD compared to some interventions, it seemed that different attachment types and number of implants supporting mandibular ODs have no clear superiority over the other in terms of peri-implant health outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Edentulous; Implant-supported; Mandible; Overdenture; Peri-implant tissue health