BACKGROUND: Literature lacks information on various unsplinted attachment systems and their effect on peri-implant tissue health. A focus question (as per PICOS) was set as follows: Does one particular unsplinted attachment system (I) compared with another (C) results in better peri-implant outcomes (O) in two implant-retained mandibular overdentures (P) using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (S)? The literature search was conducted in the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases between January 2011 and December 2021. The keywords used were "denture, overlay," "denture," "overlay" AND "dental prosthesis, implant supported," "dental implants," "dental implant abutment design" AND "jaw, edentulous," "mouth, edentulous" AND "mandible." Only RCTs on two implant-retained mandibular overdentures using unsplinted attachment systems measuring peri-implant tissue outcomes with minimum 1-year follow-up were selected. In total, 224 studies were identified in initial search, and 25 were shortlisted for full-text evaluation. Four studies were included for systematic review upon considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0).
REVIEW RESULTS: A total of 41 patients received ball attachments (in 3 studies), 36 patients received low-profile attachments (in 3 studies), 16 patients received magnet attachments (in 1 study), and 13 patients received telescopic attachments (in 1 study). All four studies used standard sized implants, however, differed in implant manufacturers. Two studies which compared ball attachments low-profile attachments revealed-similar peri-implant tissue health parameters but differed in crestal bone-level changes. One study compared ball with telescopic attachments and revealed similar results in crestal bone-level changes and all four peri-implant tissue health parameters. Single study compared magnets with low-profile attachments and shown lesser bone loss with magnet attachments. Single study was judged to have low risk of bias, single with some concerns, and remaining two to have high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION: Gingival index and bleeding index of the patients were not influenced by any of the unsplinted overdenture attachment (stud, magnet, telescopic) system. Inconclusive results found among the studies evaluated comparing crestal bone loss and plaque index.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This review manuscript has simplified comparative analysis of different unsplinted attachment systems used in two implant mandibular overdentures to help clinicians choose correct system in such situation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-dimensional solid models of the maxilla, mucosa, and denture of a selected edentulous patient were created using Mimics and CATIA software. The FEA model was created and duplicated in ANSYS 16.0 to perform two simulations for the IOD and the CD models. The values of maximum stress and strain and total deformation were obtained and compared to the outcomes of premaxilla resorption from a parallel clinical study.
RESULTS: The maximum principal stress in the premaxilla in the IOD model ranged from 0.019 to 0.336 MPa, while it ranged from 0.011 to 0.193 MPa in the CD model. The maximum principal strain in the IOD model was 1.75 times greater than that in the CD model. Total deformation was 1.8 times higher in the IOD model. Greater bone resorption was observed in regions of higher stress, which were on the occlusal and buccal sides of the premaxilla residual ridge.
CONCLUSION: Stress, strain, and total deformation values present in the premaxilla area beneath a CD were approximately two times greater in a comparison between an opposing mandibular two-IOD and an opposing mandibular CD. The results were consistent with a parallel clinical study in which the rate of premaxilla bone resorption was almost three times greater in the IOD group.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients (mean age 60.70 ± 8.7 years) received telescopic crown or locator attachments for ISOD and completed OHIP-14 (Malaysian version) and DS questionnaires, at baseline (T0 ) with new conventional complete dentures (CCD) and 3 months (T1 ) and 3 years (T2 ) after ISOD conversion. Mandibular bone volume was calculated from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) datasets using Mimics software. Mean changes (MC) in OHIP-14 and DS at intervals were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and effect size (ES). The association of bone volume, implant attachment type, and other patient variables with the change in OHIP-14 and DS were determined using multivariate linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: The MC in OHIP-14 and DS scores from T0 to T1 and T2 showed significant improvement with moderate and large ES, respectively. Regression analyses for the change in OHIP-14 score from T0 to T2 showed significant association with implant attachment type (P = 0.043), bone volume (P = 0.004), and baseline OHIP-14 (P = 0.001), while for DS, the association was only significant with baseline DS score (P = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Improvement in patients' OHRQoL and satisfaction with ISOD was associated with their baseline ratings. Mandibular bone volume had a stronger association for improvement in OHRQoL compared to type of attachment.
METHODS: Twenty patients with two adjacent missing posterior teeth were recruited. Patients were assigned equally and randomly into two groups; Bicon(®) (6 or 8 mm) and Ankylos(®) (8 mm) implants. A two-stage surgical approach and single crowns were used for implant placement and loading. Outcomes included peri-implant clinical parameters, implant stability (Periotest values; PTVs) and peri-implant bone changes, which were assessed at baseline, 2, 6 and 12 months post-loading.
RESULTS: No implant loss was encountered up to 12 months post-loading. No significant difference in the clinical or radiographic parameters was observed except for PTVs (p < 0.05) that was lower in Ankylos(®) implants.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of short dental implants was associated with excellent 12 months clinical and radiographic outcomes. Ankylos(®) and Bicon(®) implants demonstrated similar peri-implant soft tissue and alveolar bone changes. However, Ankylos(®) implants demonstrated better implant stability at all evaluation intervals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 18 patients were rehabilitated with maxillary CD opposing mandibular IRO, and 4 patients were prescribed with conventional CD. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of the maxilla were acquired before and 1 year post-treatment and converted into 3D models using Mimics research software. RRR was quantified by measuring the changes in bone volume following superimpositioning and sectioning of these models at the anterior maxillary region. Subsequently, the sectioned 3D models of the anterior maxilla were exported to 3-Matic software to reveal the predominant region and depth of RRR.
RESULTS: The mean reduction in bone volume of the anterior maxilla in the CD group was 2.60% (SD = 1.71%, range = -4.89 % to -0.92%, median = -2.30%), while the mean reduction in the IRO group was almost three times higher at 7.25% (SD = 3.16%, range = -13.25 to -1.50, median = -7.15%). The predominant areas of RRR were on the buccal and occlusal ridge of the anterior maxilla.
CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, it may be concluded that an IRO caused significantly higher RRR of the anterior maxilla than a CD.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 20 IFPP (mean age 47.0; SD 12.9 years) and 28 ISOD (mean age 61.5; SD 9.1 years) patients received 2 mandibular implants. Metal ceramic nonsplinted fixed prostheses were provided in IFPP group, while in ISOD group, the mandibular overdentures were retained by nonsplinted attachments. Patients rated their oral health-related quality of life using OHIP-14 Malaysian version at baseline (T0), 2-3 months (T1) and 1 year (T2) postimplant treatment. Mean OHIP-14 for total and domain scores between groups and intervals was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA and t-test. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for the comparison of mean score change and effect size, while the association between pre- and post-treatment scores was determined using multivariate linear regression modelling.
RESULTS: The total OHIP and domain scores before implant treatment were significantly higher (lower OHRQoL) in IFPP than in ISOD groups, except for physical pain where this domain showed similar impact in both groups. Postimplant scores between groups at T1 and T2 showed no significant difference. The mean score changes at T0-T1 and T0-T2 for total OHIP-14 and domains were significantly greater in IFPP except in the domains of physical pain and disability which showed no difference. Large effect size (ES) was observed for total OHIP-14 in IFPP while moderate in ISOD. Improved OHRQoL was dependent on the treatment group and pretreatment score.
CONCLUSION: Improvement in OHRQoL occurred following both mandibular implant-supported overdentures and implant fixed partial prostheses.