Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.5.325

Standardizing the evaluation criteria on treatment outcomes of mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review  

Kim, Ha-Young (Woorideul Dental Clinic)
Shin, Sang-Wan (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)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.6, no.5, 2014 , pp. 325-332 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. The aim of this review was to analyze the evaluation criteria on mandibular implant overdentures through a systematic review and suggest standardized evaluation criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A systematic literature search was conducted by PubMed search strategy and hand-searching of relevant journals from included studies considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and clinical trial studies comparing attachment systems on mandibular implant overdentures until December, 2011 were selected. Twenty nine studies were finally selected and the data about evaluation methods were collected. RESULTS. Evaluation criteria could be classified into 4 groups (implant survival, peri-implant tissue evaluation, prosthetic evaluation, and patient satisfaction). Among 29 studies, 21 studies presented implant survival rate, while any studies reporting implant failure did not present cumulative implant survival rate. Seventeen studies evaluating peri-implant tissue status presented following items as evaluation criteria; marginal bone level (14), plaque Index (13), probing depth (8), bleeding index (8), attachment gingiva level (8), gingival index (6), amount of keratinized gingiva (1). Eighteen studies evaluating prosthetic maintenance and complication also presented following items as evaluation criteria; loose matrix (17), female detachment (15), denture fracture (15), denture relining (14), abutment fracture (14), abutment screw loosening (11), and occlusal adjustment (9). Atypical questionnaire (9), Visual analog scales (VAS) (4), and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) (1) were used as the format of criteria to evaluate patients satisfaction in 14 studies. CONCLUSION. For evaluation of implant overdenture, it is necessary to include cumulative survival rate for implant evaluation. It is suggested that peri-implant tissue evaluation criteria include marginal bone level, plaque index, bleeding index, probing depth, and attached gingiva level. It is also suggested that prosthetic evaluation criteria include loose matrix, female detachment, denture fracture, denture relining, abutment fracture, abutment screw loosening, and occlusal adjustment. Finally standardized criteria like OHIP-EDENT or VAS are required for patient satisfaction.
Keywords
Denture; Overlay; Mandibular prosthesis; Dental implants; Outcome assessment; Patient satisfaction;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Gjengedal H, Dahl L, Lavik A, Trovik TA, Berg E, Boe OE, Malde MK. Randomized clinical trial comparing dietary intake in patients with implant-retained overdentures and conventionally relined denture. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:340-7.
2 Roumanas ED, Garrett NR, Hamada MO, Kapur KK. Comparisons of chewing difficulty of consumed foods with mandibular conventional dentures and implant-supported overdentures in diabetic denture wearers. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:609-15.
3 Roumanas ED, Garrett NR, Hamada MO, Diener RM, Kapur KK. A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part V: food preference comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:62-73.   DOI
4 Roumanas ED. The frequency of replacement of dental restorations may vary based on a number of variables, including type of material, size of the restoration, and caries risk of the patient. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2010;10:23-4.   DOI
5 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.
6 Kim HY, Lee JY, Shin SW, Bryant SR. Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4:197-203.   DOI
7 Stendell-Hollis NR, Laudermilk MJ, West JL, Thompson PA, Thomson CA. Recruitment of lactating women into a randomized dietary intervention: successful strategies and factors promoting enrollment and retention. Contemp Clin Trials 2011;32:505-11.   DOI
8 Gardiner C, Gott M, Small N, Payne S, Seamark D, Barnes S, Halpin D, Ruse C. Living with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: patients concerns regarding death and dying. Palliat Med 2009;23:691-7.   DOI
9 Osborne NJ, Payne D, Newman ML. Journal editorial policies, animal welfare, and the 3Rs. Am J Bioeth 2009;9:55-9.
10 Payne S, Froggatt K, O'Shea E, Murphy K, Larkin P, Casey D, Leime AN. Improving palliative and end-of-life care for older people in Ireland: a new model and framework for institutional care. J Palliat Care 2009;25:218-26.
11 Ma S, Payne AG. Marginal bone loss with mandibular twoimplant overdentures using different loading protocols: a systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:117-26.
12 Mittmann N, Trakas K, Risebrough N, Liu BA. Utility scores for chronic conditions in a community-dwelling population. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15:369-76.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Payne AG, Walton TR, Walton JN, Solomons YF. The outcome of implant overdentures from a prosthodontic perspective: proposal for a classification protocol. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:27-32.
14 Walton JN, Glick N, Macentee MI. A randomized clinical trial comparing patient satisfaction and prosthetic outcomes with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:331-9.
15 Strassburger C, Kerschbaum T, Heydecke G. Influence of implant and conventional prostheses on satisfaction and quality of life: A literature review. Part 2: Qualitative analysis and evaluation of the studies. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:339-48.
16 Hunter P. Limited evidence for evaluating differences in marginal bone loss between conventional, early and immediate loading protocols for mandibular two-implant overdentures. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142:427-8.   DOI
17 Naert I, Quirynen M, Hooghe M, van Steenberghe D. A comparative prospective study of splinted and unsplinted Brånemark implants in mandibular overdenture therapy: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:486-92.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Davis DM. Implant supported overdentures-the King's experience. J Dent 1997;25:S33-7.   DOI
19 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.
20 Gotfredsen K. Implant supported overdentures-the Copenhagen experience. J Dent 1997;25:S39-42.   DOI
21 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
22 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.
23 Naert IE, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A randomised clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in mandibular overdenture therapy. A 3-year report. Clin Oral Investig 1997;1:81-8.   DOI
24 Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A 5-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998; 9:170-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 von Wowern N, Gotfredsen K. Implant-supported overdentures, a prevention of bone loss in edentulous mandibles? A 5-year follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:19-25.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 Assad AS, Abd El-Dayem MA, Badawy MM. Comparison between mainly mucosa-supported and combined mucosaimplant- supported mandibular overdentures. Implant Dent 2004;13:386-94.   DOI
31 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.
32 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
33 Quirynen M, Alsaadi G, Pauwels M, Haffajee A, van Steenberghe D, Naert I. Microbiological and clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction for two treatment options in the edentulous lower jaw after 10 years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:277-87.   DOI
34 Stoker GT, Wismeijer D, van Waas MA. An eight-year follow- up to a randomized clinical trial of aftercare and costanalysis with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res 2007;86:276-80.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 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 ballsocket and bar-clip attachments. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23: 310-7.
36 Kleis WK, Kämmerer 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 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
38 Burns DR, Unger JW, Coffey JP, Waldrop TC, Elswick RK Jr. Randomized, prospective, clinical evaluation of prosthodontic modalities for mandibular implant overdenture treatment. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:12-22.   DOI
39 Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Mandibular two-implant overdentures: three-year prosthodontic maintenance using the locator attachment system. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:328-31.
40 Hamada MO, Garrett NR, Roumanas ED, Kapur KK, Freymiller E, Han T, Diener RM, Chen T, Levin S. A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part IV: Comparisons of dietary intake. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:53-60.   DOI
41 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.
42 Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Mandibular two-implant overdentures: prosthodontic maintenance using different loading protocols and attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:405-16.
43 Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Swain MV. Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:429-40.
44 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.
45 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
46 Abd El-Dayem MA, Assad AS, Eldin Sanad ME, Mahmoud Mogahed SA. Comparison of prefabricated and custommade bars used for implant-retained mandibular complete overdentures. Implant Dent 2009;18:501-11.   DOI   ScienceOn