Attachments for Mandibular Implant-supported Overdenture: A Systematic Review_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

DU Li ,  HUANG Wei , YANG Zhun

West China College of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China;

Corresponding author：

HUANG Wei, Email: huangwei930@126.com

Keywords：

Attachments; Mandibular implant-supported overdentures; Systematic review

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective 　To evaluate clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and maintenance after treatment from mandibular implant-supported overdentures with different attachment types.
Methods 　We searched six electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005), Current Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1966 to Sept. 2005), EMBASE (1984 to Sept. 2005), and Chinese biomedical database disk (1978 to Sept. 2005). Eleven Chinese professional journals in oral health were also handsearched from their first published issues. Three authors screened and selected the studies, appraised their methodological quality and extracted data from the studies. The results were presented narratively by meta-analysis.
Results 　After strict screening, 12 trials involving 282 patients were included. Two of the trials were included in a meta-analysis with 27 patients in bar-clip group, 29 patients in ball-spring group, and the other trials were described thoroughly. The findings seemed to indicate that the bar-clip group had the highest retention but more oral mucosa complications, while the ball-spring group had good retention and less oral mucosa complications but needed more aftercare treatments, and the magnetic group had less retention but better peri-implant outcomes.
Conclusions　 There is inadequate evidence to prove which is the best choice for mandibular implant-supported overdentures among bar-clip, ball-spring and magnetic attachments. More controlled clinical trials are required to guide clinicians on the choice of the type of attachment in mandibular implant-supported overdenture.

Citation： DU Li,HUANG Wei,YANG Zhun. Attachments for Mandibular Implant-supported Overdenture: A Systematic Review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2006, 06(9): 667-672. doi: Copy

1.	全国牙病防治指导组. 第二次全国口腔流行病学抽样调查. 北京: 人民卫生出版社; 1999. 420.
2.	China National Committee for Oral Health. The 2nd National Epidemiologic Study on Oral Health. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House; 1999.420.
3.	Henriksen BM, Axell T, Laake K. Geographic differences in tooth loss and denture-wearing among the elderly in Norway. Commun Dent & Oral Epidemi, 2003; 31(6): 403–411.
4.	Beltran-Aguilar ED, Barker LK, Canto MT, et al. Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis--United States, 1988-1994 and 1999–2002. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries/CDC. 54(3):1–43, 2005.
5.	Gift H, Redford M. Oral health and the quality of life. Clin Geriatric Med, 1992; 8(3): 673–683.
6.	Batenburg RH, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, et al. Treatment concept for mandibular overdentures supported by endosseous implants: aliterature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1998; 13 (5): 539-545.
7.	Cune MS, De Putter C, Hoogstraten J. Characteristics of 5410 edentulous implant candidates and the treatment they receive. J Communi Dent Oral Epidemiol, 1995; 23 (2): 110–113.
8.	Heckmann SM, Winter M, Meyer M, et al. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture bearing area. Part 2: a methodological study using five types of attachment. Clin Oral Impl Res, 2001; 12(6): 640–647.
9.	Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Problems with protheses on implants: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent, 1994; 71(3): 283–288.
10.	Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials:Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996; 17(1): 1–12.
11.	Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects. J Am Med Associ, 1995 ; 273(5): 408–412.
12.	Wismeijer D, Marinus AJ. Clinic and radiological results of patients treated with three treatment modalities for overdentures on implants of the ITI Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Impl Res, 1999; 10(4): 297–306.
13.	Joanne NW. A Randomized Clinic Trial Comparing Two Mandibular Implant Overdenture Design: 3-Years Prosthetic Outcomes Using a Six-Field Protocol. Int J Prosthodont, 2003; 16 (3): 255–260.
14.	Timmerman R, Stoker GT; Wismeijer D, et al. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of participant satisfaction with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res, 2004; 83 (8): 630–633.
15.	Joanne NW. One-Year Prosthetic Outcomes with Implant Overdentures: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Impl, 2002; 17(3): 391–398.
16.	Wismeijer D. Patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: A comparison of three treatment strategies with ITI-dental implants. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Surg, 1997; 26(4): 263–267.
17.	Cuneyt K. Comparison of 2 Retentive Systems for Implant-Supported Overdentures: Soft Tissue Management and Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction. J Periodontol, 2002; 73(9): 1067–1070.
18.	Michael IM. A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: Three-year results. J Prosthet Dent, 2005; 93(1): 28–37.
19.	Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke D, et al. A randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in mandibular overdenture therapy: A 3-year report. Clin Oral Invest, 1997; 1(2): 81–88.
20.	Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke D, et al. A 5-year randomized clinic trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy Part I: peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Impl Res, 1998; 9(3): 170–177.
21.	Naert I, Gizani S. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil, 1999; 26(3): 195–202.
22.	Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont, 2004; 17(4): 401–410.
23.	Naert I. A 10-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures:Peri-implant Outcome. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Impl, 2004; 19 (5): 695–702.

1. 全国牙病防治指导组. 第二次全国口腔流行病学抽样调查. 北京: 人民卫生出版社; 1999. 420.
2. China National Committee for Oral Health. The 2nd National Epidemiologic Study on Oral Health. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House; 1999.420.
3. Henriksen BM, Axell T, Laake K. Geographic differences in tooth loss and denture-wearing among the elderly in Norway. Commun Dent & Oral Epidemi, 2003; 31(6): 403–411.
4. Beltran-Aguilar ED, Barker LK, Canto MT, et al. Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis--United States, 1988-1994 and 1999–2002. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries/CDC. 54(3):1–43, 2005.
5. Gift H, Redford M. Oral health and the quality of life. Clin Geriatric Med, 1992; 8(3): 673–683.
6. Batenburg RH, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, et al. Treatment concept for mandibular overdentures supported by endosseous implants: aliterature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1998; 13 (5): 539-545.
7. Cune MS, De Putter C, Hoogstraten J. Characteristics of 5410 edentulous implant candidates and the treatment they receive. J Communi Dent Oral Epidemiol, 1995; 23 (2): 110–113.
8. Heckmann SM, Winter M, Meyer M, et al. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture bearing area. Part 2: a methodological study using five types of attachment. Clin Oral Impl Res, 2001; 12(6): 640–647.
9. Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Problems with protheses on implants: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent, 1994; 71(3): 283–288.
10. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials:Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996; 17(1): 1–12.
11. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects. J Am Med Associ, 1995 ; 273(5): 408–412.
12. Wismeijer D, Marinus AJ. Clinic and radiological results of patients treated with three treatment modalities for overdentures on implants of the ITI Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Impl Res, 1999; 10(4): 297–306.
13. Joanne NW. A Randomized Clinic Trial Comparing Two Mandibular Implant Overdenture Design: 3-Years Prosthetic Outcomes Using a Six-Field Protocol. Int J Prosthodont, 2003; 16 (3): 255–260.
14. Timmerman R, Stoker GT; Wismeijer D, et al. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of participant satisfaction with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res, 2004; 83 (8): 630–633.
15. Joanne NW. One-Year Prosthetic Outcomes with Implant Overdentures: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Impl, 2002; 17(3): 391–398.
16. Wismeijer D. Patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: A comparison of three treatment strategies with ITI-dental implants. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Surg, 1997; 26(4): 263–267.
17. Cuneyt K. Comparison of 2 Retentive Systems for Implant-Supported Overdentures: Soft Tissue Management and Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction. J Periodontol, 2002; 73(9): 1067–1070.
18. Michael IM. A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: Three-year results. J Prosthet Dent, 2005; 93(1): 28–37.
19. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke D, et al. A randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in mandibular overdenture therapy: A 3-year report. Clin Oral Invest, 1997; 1(2): 81–88.
20. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke D, et al. A 5-year randomized clinic trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy Part I: peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Impl Res, 1998; 9(3): 170–177.
21. Naert I, Gizani S. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil, 1999; 26(3): 195–202.
22. Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont, 2004; 17(4): 401–410.
23. Naert I. A 10-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures:Peri-implant Outcome. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Impl, 2004; 19 (5): 695–702.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Attachments for Mandibular Implant-supported Overdenture: A Systematic Review

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content