Systematic review of prosthetic maintenance requirements for implant-supported overdentures

CosmORAL Oral and Dental Health Polyclinics, Ankara, Turkey.
The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants (Impact Factor: 1.45). 01/2010; 25(1):163-80.
Source: PubMed


To evaluate prosthetic maintenance requirements for implant-retained/supported overdentures via a review of the literature.
Using the combined search terms "implant and overdenture," "implant-supported overdenture," "implant-retained overdenture," and "implant-anchored overdenture," along with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, eligible articles between 1997 and 2008 (up to April 1) were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, the Cochrane Library databases, and seven journals by hand-searching. The initial search yielded 3,120 titles, and 287 articles were assigned to full-text analysis. Upon classification of the prosthetic complications with regard to the jaws treated and the attachment systems used, within- and between-group comparative frequency analyses were undertaken with the Kruskal-Wallis test or the Mann-Whitney U test at P < .05.
A total of 49 articles were included. Within- and between-group evaluations with regard to jaw treated as well as the attachment systems used showed that the frequency of complications did not change over time (P > .05). The differences detected were more matrix replacements after 5 years in the maxilla and mandible and more matrix replacements and patrix fractures after the first year in the mandible (P < .05). Among the attachment systems, a dislodged, worn, or loose matrix or its respective housing was more common in the ball-attachment group after the first year (P < .05). Prosthetic complications for all types of attachments were comparable (P > .05), except for the differences in peri-implant or interabutment mucosal enlargement rates after 1 year.
Prosthetic maintenance requirements for overdentures on both jaws seem to be comparable. The impact of attachment system on the prosthetic outcome is negligible.

43 Reads
    • "Although infrequent, mechanical failures with bar-supported overdentures have been reported. Besides the prosthesis itself, loosening of the anchoring clips and fractures of the bar and especially the extension cantilevers do occur [23] [27]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fractures of distal bar extensions, supporting a mandibular overdenture, do occur with significant functional and economic consequences for the patient. This study therefore aims to evaluate the effect of different bar cross-sectional shapes and surfaces, bar extension lengths and the placement of a support rib under the distal bar extension on fracture resistance. The 2nd moment area and static strength were calculated for 11 frequently used bar designs using finite element analysis (FEA). For two specific designs (Ackermann round 1.8 mm and Dolder Y-macro, the former with and without a support rib) additional physical static and fatigue strength tests were included. The FEA static strength data corresponded well to the 2nd moment area (a similar ranking when maximum allowed force was considered). The application of a rib support (Ackermann 1.8 mm) and limitations of the bar extension length (6 mm for the Ackermann 1.8 mm, 8 mm for the Dolder Y-macro) allowed the bars to exceed 5 × 10(6) cycles of 120 and 250 N respectively, before fracture. The region of highest stresses in FEA corresponded well with the locations of the fractures observed in static- and fatigue testing. With some simple guidelines/modifications, the number of bar extension fractures can be reduced significantly. This study focusses on distal bar extensions which improve the positioning of an implant supported overdenture. By combining laboratory testing and finite element simulations we aim to: (1) explain why fractures occur (dependent on physical characteristics of the bar), and (2) give clinical guidelines on how to prevent such fractures. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Journal of dentistry 06/2015; 43(9). DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2015.06.007 · 2.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Various types of attachment systems are currently available to restore implant-supported overdenture (IOD). Clinicians have selected IOD attachment systems based on factors such as durability, patient demand, cost effectiveness, technical simplicity, and retention [1]. The successful outcome of IOD therapy is well-documented [2,3], and different types of attachment systems have been compared regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, soft tissue, retention, stress distribution, maintenance, and complications [4]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this review is to examine the performance of attachments used in implant-supported overdenture (IOD) in both clinical and in vitro settings and report the compiled findings, comparisons, and trends in the research literature. Articles published in PubMed on IOD attachment systems and performance were reviewed. Non-original articles were excluded. For each article included, the type of study, number of implants, number of attachment systems, and study outcome were recorded. Of the 283 articles found, 158 met the inclusion criteria. Ninety-four articles were clinical studies and 64 articles were in vitro studies. Studies on retention were the most common for in vitro studies, and four or more attachment systems were compared in most articles with significant differences in outcome. A clinical outcome of one attachment system was most common for clinical studies, while most studies had neutral outcomes overall. Ball attachment was the most commonly tested IOD attachment system. The trend in the literature showed that there is a large discrepancy between the study designs and outcomes between the clinical and the in vitro studies for IOD. Further clinical studies that can validate in vitro research should be encouraged to address this discrepancy between the two areas.
    Journal of periodontal & implant science 02/2013; 43(1):12-17. DOI:10.5051/jpis.2013.43.1.12 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the prosthodontic maintenance requirements during the first year of service of mandibular overdentures supported by interforaminal implants and to assess the influence of attachment type, implant number, and bite force on these requirements. Fifty-nine patients treated with mandibular implant overdentures between the years 2004 and 2009 and appearing in the 12th-month recall were included in this study. The overdentures constituted 4 groups: 2 single interforaminal implants (1 group with locator and 1 group with ball attachments), 3 single interforaminal implants, 3 splinted interforaminal implants (bar), and 4 splinted interforaminal implants (bar). During the examination, prosthetic parameters such as occlusion, tissue adaptation, condition of the retentive mechanism (matrice and patrice), and the condition of the denture-bearing tissues were evaluated and recorded. No statistically significant relation was found between attachment type, bite force values, implant number, and the occurring complications except the need for relining, which was found significantly more in the ball attachments than in other attachment groups (P  =  .03). After 12 months following the overdenture insertion, there seems to be no relation between occurring complications and patient-related factors, such as maximum bite force, age, and gender, as well as factors related to the overdentures such as number and type of attachments.
    Journal of Oral Implantology 10/2010; 37(6):697-704. DOI:10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00096 · 1.02 Impact Factor
Show more