Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.197

Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review  

Kim, Ha-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, KUMC, Korea University)
Lee, Jeong-Yol (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, KUMC, Korea University)
Shin, Sang-Wan (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, KUMC, Korea University)
Bryant, S. Ross (Department of Prosthetics and Dental Geriatrics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of British Columbia Vancouver)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.4, no.4, 2012 , pp. 197-203 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. The aim of this systematic review was to address treatment outcome according to attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures in terms of implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance and complications, and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and hand searching of relevant journals considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Clinical trial studies on mandibular implant overdentures until August, 2010 were selected if more than one type of overdenture attachment was reported. Twenty four studies from 1098 studies were finally included and the data on implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance and complications, patient satisfaction were analyzed relative to attachment systems. RESULTS. Four studies presented implant survival rates (95.8 - 97.5% for bar, 96.2 - 100% for ball, 91.7% for magnet) according to attachment system. Ten other studies presented an implant survival rate ranging from 93.3% to 100% without respect to the attachment groups. Common prosthetic maintenance and complications were replacement of an assay for magnet attachments, and activation of a matrix or clip for ball or bar attachments. Prosthetic maintenance and complications most commonly occurred in the magnet groups. Conflicting findings were found on the rate of prosthetic maintenance and complications comparing ball and bar attachments. Most studies showed no significant differences in patient satisfaction depending upon attachment systems. CONCLUSION. The implant survival rate of mandibular overdentures seemed to be high regardless attachment systems. The prosthetic maintenance and complications may be influenced by attachment systems. However patient satisfaction may be independent of the attachment system.
Keywords
Denture; Overlay; Mandibular prosthesis; Dental implants; Outcome assessment; Patient satisfaction;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Timmerman R, Stoker GT, Wismeijer D, Oosterveld P, Vermeeren JI, van Waas MA. 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;83:630-3.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 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;17:401-10.
3 Gallucci GO, Morton D, Weber HP. Loading protocols for dental implants in edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:132-46.
4 Riley MA, Williams AJ, Speight JD, Walmsley AD, Harris IR. Investigations into the failure of dental magnets. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:249-54.
5 Saygili G, Sahmali S. Retentive forces of two magnetic systems compared with two precision attachments. J Oral Sci 1998;40:61-4.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Riley MA, Walmsley AD, Harris IR. Magnets in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:137-42.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Wismeijer D, van Waas MA, Vermeeren JI, Mulder J, Kalk W. Patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures. A comparison of three treatment strategies with ITI-dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26:263-7.
8 van Waas MA. The influence of clinical variables on patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:307-10.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Awad MA, Feine JS. Measuring patient satisfaction with mandibular prostheses. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1998;26:400-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Carlsson GE. Clinical morbidity and sequelae of treatment with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:17-23.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Stoker GT, Wismeijer D, van Waas MA. An eight-year followup to a randomized clinical trial of aftercare and cost-analysis with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res 2007;86:276-80.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Walton JN, MacEntee MI, Glick N. One-year prosthetic outcomes with implant overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:391-8.
13 Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais J, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:601-2.
14 MacEntee MI, Walton JN, 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Payne AG, Solomons YF. Mandibular implant-supported overdentures: a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3 different attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:246-53.
16 Cune M, Burgers M, van Kampen F, de Putter C, van der Bilt A. Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:310-7.
17 British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry. The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009;17:164-5.
18 Ma S, Tawse-Smith A, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Marginal bone loss with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different loading protocols and attachment systems: 10-year outcomes. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:321-32.
19 Andreiotelli M, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthodontic complications with implant overdentures: a systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:195-203.
20 Assuncao WG, Barao VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology 2010;27:154-62.
21 Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 2006;15:24-34.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Needleman IG. A guide to systematic reviews. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:6-9.
23 Davis DM, Packer ME. Mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech implants with either ball attachments or magnets: 5-year results. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:222-9.
24 Davis DM, Packer ME. The maintenance requirements of mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech implants using three different attachment mechanisms-balls, magnets, and bars; 3-year results. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2000;8:131-4.
25 Davis DM, Rogers JO, Packer ME. The extent of maintenance required by implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 3- year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:767-74.
26 Wismeijer D, van Waas MA, Mulder J, Vermeeren JI, Kalk W. Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with three treatment modalities for overdentures on implants of the ITI Dental Implant System. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:297-306.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Davis DM. Implant supported overdentures-the King's experience. J Dent 1997;25:33-7.
28 Mericske-Stern R, Steinlin Schaffner T, Marti P, Geering AH. Peri-implant mucosal aspects of ITI implants supporting overdentures. A five-year longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:9-18.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Gotfredsen K. Implant supported overdentures-the Copenhagen experience. J Dent 1997;25:39-42.
30 Naert I, Quirynen M, Hooghe M, van Steenberghe D. A comparative prospective study of splinted and unsplinted Branemark implants in mandibular overdenture therapy: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:486-92.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A 5-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and un splinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:170-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:125-30.
34 Walton JN. A randomized clinical trial comparing two mandibular implant overdenture designs: 3-year prosthetic outcomes using a six-field protocol. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:255-60.
35 Naert I, Alsaadi G, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. 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 Implants 2004;19:695-702.
36 Kleis WK, Kammerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:209-18.
37 Ceruti P, Bryant SR, Lee JH, MacEntee MI. Magnet-retained implant- supported overdentures: review and 1-year clinical report. J Can Dent Assoc 2010;76:a52.
38 Watson GK, Payne AG, Purton DG, Thomson WM. Mandibular overdentures: comparative evaluation of prosthodontic maintenance of three different implant systems during the first year of service. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:259-66.
39 Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Mandibular twoimplant overdentures: prosthodontic maintenance using different loading protocols and attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:405-16.
40 Walton JN, Huizinga SC, Peck CC. Implant angulation: a measurement technique, implant overdenture maintenance, and the influence of surgical experience. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:523-30.
41 Assad AS, Abd El-Dayem MA, Badawy MM. Comparison between mainly mucosa-supported and combined mucosa-implant- supported mandibular overdentures. Implant Dent 2004;13:386-94.
42 Abd El-Dayem MA, Assad AS, Eldin Sanad ME, Mahmoud Mogahed SA. Comparison of prefabricated and custom-made bars used for implant-retained mandibular complete overdentures. Implant Dent 2009;18:501-11.   DOI   ScienceOn