Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Effect of 2-implant mandibular overdenture with different attachments and loading protocols on peri-implant health and prosthetic complications: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Published:February 02, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.016

      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.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kutkut A.
        • Bertoli E.
        • Frazer R.
        • Pinto-Sinai G.
        • Fuentealba Hidalgo R.
        • Studts J.
        A systematic review of studies comparing conventional complete denture and implant retained overdenture.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 1-9
        • Passia N.
        • Kern M.
        The single midline implant in the edentulous mandible: a systematic review.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18: 1719-1724
        • Thomason J.M.
        • Feine J.
        • Exley C.
        • Moynihan P.
        • Müller F.
        • Naert I.
        • et al.
        Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients--the York Consensus Statement.
        Br Dent J. 2009; 207: 185-186
        • Winkler S.
        • Piermatti J.
        • Rothman A.
        • Siamos G.
        An overview of the O-ring implant overdenture attachment: clinical reports.
        J Oral Implantol. 2002; 28: 82-86
        • Cakarer S.
        • Can T.
        • Yaltirik M.
        • Keskin C.
        Complications associated with the ball, bar and LOCATOR attachments for implant-supported overdentures.
        Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011; 16: e953-e959
        • Payne A.G.
        • Solomons Y.F.
        • Tawse-Smith A.
        • Lownie J.F.
        Inter-abutment and peri-abutment mucosal enlargement with mandibular implant overdentures.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12: 179-187
        • Karabuda C.
        • Tosun T.
        • Ermis E.
        • Ozdemir T.
        Comparison of 2 retentive systems for implant-supported overdentures: soft tissue management and evaluation of patient satisfaction.
        J Periodontol. 2002; 73: 1067-1070
        • Gonda T.
        • Maeda Y.
        Why are magnetic attachments popular in Japan and other Asian countries?.
        Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2011; 47: 124-130
        • Naert I.
        • Gizani S.
        • Vuylsteke M.
        • Van Steenberghe D.
        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: 195-202
        • Chung K.H.
        • Chung C.Y.
        • Cagna D.R.
        • Cronin Jr., R.J.
        Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures.
        J Prosthodont. 2004; 13: 221-226
        • Boeckler A.F.
        • Ehring C.
        • Morton D.
        • Geis-Gerstorfer J.
        • Setz J.M.
        Corrosion of dental magnet attachments for removable prostheses on teeth and implants.
        J Prosthodont. 2009; 18: 301-308
        • Vasant R.
        • Vasant M.K.
        Retention systems for implant-retained overdentures.
        Dent Update. 2013; 40: 28-31
        • ELsyad M.A.
        • Fathe Mahanna F.
        • Samir Khirallah A.
        • Ali Habib A.
        Clinical denture base deformation with different attachments used to stabilize implant overdentures: A crossover study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31: 162-172
        • Alsabeeha N.H.
        • Payne A.G.
        • De Silva R.K.
        • Thomson W.M.
        Mandibular single-implant overdentures: preliminary results of a randomised-control trial on early loading with different implant diameters and attachment systems.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 330-337
        • Langer A.
        Telescope retainers for removable partial dentures.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 45: 37-43
        • Langer A.
        Telescope retainers and their clinical application.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1980; 44: 516-522
        • Cochran D.L.
        • Morton D.
        • Weber H.-P.
        Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding loading protocols for endosseous dental implants.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19: 109-113
        • Romanos G.E.
        • Nentwig G.H.
        Immediate versus delayed functional loading of implants in the posterior mandible: A 2-year prospective clinical study of 12 consecutive cases.
        Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006; 26: 459-469
        • Leao R.S.
        • Moraes S.L.D.
        • Vasconcelos B.C.E.
        • Lemos C.A.A.
        • Pellizzer E.P.
        Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2018; 45: 647-656
        • Di Francesco F.
        • De Marco G.
        • Sommella A.
        • Lanza A.
        Splinting vs not splinting four implants supporting a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2019; 32: 509-518
        • Alqutaibi A.Y.
        • Elawady D.M.A.
        Implant splinting in mandibular overdentures: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
        Quintessence Int. 2020; 51: 294-302
        • Stoker G.
        • van Waas R.
        • Wismeijer D.
        Long-term outcomes of three types of implant-supported mandibular overdentures in smokers.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 925-929
        • Viswambaran M.
        • Arora V.
        • Gupta S.H.
        • Dhiman R.K.
        • Thiruvalluvan N.
        A clinico radiographic study of immediate loading implants in rehabilitation of mandibular ridges.
        Med J Armed Forces India. 2015; 71: S346-S354
        • Kawai Y.
        • Taylor J.A.
        Effect of loading time on the success of complete mandibular titanium implant retained overdentures: A systematic review.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18: 399-408
        • Sanda M.
        • Fueki K.
        • Bari P.R.
        • Baba K.
        Comparison of immediate and conventional loading protocols with respect to marginal bone loss around implants supporting mandibular overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2019; 55: 20-25
        • Elsyad M.A.
        • Khirallah A.S.
        Circumferential bone loss around splinted and nonsplinted immediately loaded implants retaining mandibular overdentures: A randomized controlled clinical trial using cone beam computed tomography.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 741-748
        • Stoumpis C.
        • Kohal R.J.
        To splint or not to splint oral implants in the implant-supported overdenture therapy? A systematic literature review.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38: 857-869
        • Vandvik P.O.
        • Brignardello-Petersen R.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: A paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews?.
        BMC Med. 2016; 14: 59
        • Hutton B.
        • Salanti G.
        • Caldwell D.M.
        • Chaimani A.
        • Schmid C.H.
        • Cameron C.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations.
        Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162: 777-784
        • Cepa S.
        • Koller B.
        • Spies B.C.
        • Stampf S.
        • Kohal R.-J.
        Implant-retained prostheses: Ball vs. Conus attachments – a randomized controlled clinical trial.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 177-185
        • ElSyad M.A.
        • Denewar B.A.
        • Elsaih E.A.
        Clinical and radiographic evaluation of bar, telescopic, and LOCATOR attachments for implant-stabilized overdentures in patients with mandibular atrophied ridges: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33: 1103-1111
        • Gotfredsen K.
        • Holm B.
        Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: A randomized prospective 5-year study.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2000; 13: 125-130
        • Krennmair G.
        • Weinlander M.
        • Krainhofner M.
        • Piehslinger E.
        Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or telescopic crown attachments: A 3-year prospective study.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2006; 19: 164-170
        • Kutkut A.
        • Rezk M.
        • Zephyr D.
        • Dawson D.
        • Frazer R.
        • Al-Sabbagh M.
        Immediate loading of unsplinted implant retained mandibular overdenture: A randomized controlled clinical study.
        J Oral Implantol. 2019; 45: 378-389
        • Elsyad M.A.
        • Al-Mahdy Y.F.
        • Fouad M.M.
        Marginal bone loss adjacent to conventional and immediate loaded two implants supporting a ball-retained mandibular overdenture: A 3-year randomized clinical trial.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 496-503
        • Elsyad M.A.
        • Elsaih E.A.
        • Khairallah A.S.
        2014. Marginal bone resorption around immediate and delayed loaded implants supporting a LOCATOR-retained mandibular overdenture. A 1-year randomised controlled trial.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2014; 41: 608-618
        • Elsyad M.A.
        • Mahanna F.F.
        • Elshahat M.A.
        • Elshoukouki A.H.
        LOCATORs versus magnetic attachment effect on peri-implant tissue health of immediate loaded two implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: A 1-year randomised trial.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2016; 43: 297-305
        • Salman A.
        • Thacker S.
        • Rubin S.
        • Dhingra A.
        • Ioannidou E.
        • Schincaglia G.P.
        Immediate versus delayed loading of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: A 60-month follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.
        J Clin Periodontol. 2019; 46: 863-871
        • Schincaglia G.P.
        • Rubin S.
        • Thacker S.
        • Dhingra A.
        • Trombelli L.
        • Ioannidou E.
        Marginal bone response around immediate- and delayed-loading implants supporting a LOCATOR-retained mandibular overdenture: A randomized controlled study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 448-458
        • Kappel S.
        • Giannakopoulos N.N.
        • Eberhard L.
        • Rammelsberg P.
        • Eiffler C.
        Immediate loading of dental implants in edentulous mandibles by use of LOCATOR® attachments or Dolder® bars: two-year results from a prospective randomized clinical study.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016; 18: 752-761
        • Davis D.M.
        • Packer M.E.
        Mandibular overdentures stabilized by astra tech implants with either ball attachments or magnets: 5-year results.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12: 222-229
      1. Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK2019: 205-228
        • van Valkenhoef G.
        • Bujkiewicz S.
        • Efthimiou O.
        • Reid D.
        • Stroomberg C.
        • de Keijser J.
        GeMTC Manual, 2016
        • van Valkenhoef G.
        • Bujkiewicz S.
        • Efthimiou O.
        • Reid D.
        • Stroomberg C.
        • de Keijser J.
        gemtc.drugis.org.
        Bayesian evidence synthesis, 2016
        • Helmy M.H.E.
        • Alqutaibi A.Y.
        • El-Ella A.A.
        • Shawky A.F.
        Effect of implant loading protocols on failure and marginal bone loss with unsplinted two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 47: 642-650
        • Albrektsson T.
        • Zarb G.
        • Worthington P.
        • Eriksson A.R.
        The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986; 1: 11-25
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Chen C.J.
        • Singh M.
        • Weber H.P.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        Success criteria in implant dentistry: A systematic review.
        J Dent Res. 2012; 91: 242-248
        • Muller F.
        • Schimmel M.
        Revised success criteria: A vision to meet frailty and dependency in implant patients.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 15
        • Roos J.
        • Sennerby L.
        • Lekholm U.
        • Jemt T.
        • Gröndahl K.
        • Albrektsson T.
        A qualitative and quantitative method for evaluating implant success: A 5-year retrospective analysis of the brånemark implant.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 504-514
        • Pae A.
        • Kim J.W.
        • Kwon K.R.
        Immediate loading of two implants supporting a magnet attachment-retained overdenture: One-year clinical study.
        Implant Dent. 2010; 19: 428-436
        • Zhang S.
        • Wang S.
        • Song Y.
        Immediate loading for implant restoration compared with early or conventional loading: A meta-analysis.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45: 793-803
        • Singh P.D.
        • Kumar V.
        • Arya G.
        A comparative evaluation of immediate versus delayed loading of two implants with mandibular overdenture: An in vivo study.
        Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 10: 47-55
        • Chen J.
        • Cai M.
        • Yang J.
        • Aldhohrah T.
        • Wang Y.
        Immediate versus early or conventional loading dental implants with fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 516-536
        • Duyck J.
        • Vandamme K.
        The effect of loading on peri-implant bone: A critical review of the literature.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2014; 41: 783-794
        • Vandamme K.
        • Naert I.
        • Geris L.
        • Vander Sloten J.
        • Puers R.
        • Duyck J.
        Influence of controlled immediate loading and implant design on peri-implant bone formation.
        J Clin Periodontol. 2007; 34: 172-181
        • Turkyilmaz I.
        • McGlumphy E.A.
        Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: A retrospective clinical study.
        BMC Oral Health. 2008; 24: 32
        • Ottoni J.M.
        • Oliveira Z.F.
        • Mansini R.
        • Cabral A.M.
        Correlation between placement torque and survival of single-tooth implants.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20: 769-776
        • MacEntee M.I.
        • Walton J.N.
        • Glick N.
        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: 28-37
        • Tallarico M.
        • Ortensi L.
        • Martinolli M.
        • Casucci A.
        • Ferrari E.
        • Malaguti G.
        • et al.
        Multicenter retrospective analysis of implant overdentures delivered with different design and attachment systems: results between one and 17 years of follow-up.
        Dent J (Basel). 2018; 6: 71