Immediate loading of four interforaminal implants supporting a locator-retained mandibular overdenture in the elderly. Results of a 3-year randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study

Marginal Bone Loss and Treatment Complications with Mandibular Overdentures Retained by Two Immediate or Conventionally Loaded Implants—A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study aimed to assess marginal bone loss and complication rates of mandibular overdentures retained on two implants with conventional and immediate loading protocols. Twenty edentulous patients were treated with mandibular two-implant-retained overdentures and new complete maxillary dentures. In one half of the sample, the implants were loaded immediately by VulkanLoc® abutments. In the counterpart group, these abutments were connected to the implants two months after implant placement (conventional protocol). Treatment outcomes were evaluated at 2, 6, and 12 months after implant placement. According to the pre- and post-insertion radiographs, there was a mean marginal bone loss of 0.25–0.59 mm (CI 95%) after 13.4 ± 2.1 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups. The failure rate (percentage of implants failing per year) was slightly higher in the conventional loading group (14.0 ± 32.7%) than in the immediate loading group (8.3 ± 18.0%). The findings of the present study suggested that there were no differences in marginal bone loss observed at one year for immediately loaded implants (0.40–0.39 mm) versus conventionally loaded implants (0.44- 0.36 mm) placed for the retention of mandibular overdentures. There were no differences in primary and secondary stability of immediately loaded versus conventional implants; however, in the conventional loading group, stability increased significantly between implant placement compared at both 6 and 12 months post-placement.

Patient satisfaction and masticatory performance of zirconia bar compared to cobalt chromium bar retaining mandibular implant overdenture: A crossover study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this crossover clinical study was the evaluation and comparison of patient satisfaction and masticatory performance for patients rehabilitated with mandibular two implant overdentures retained with two different bar attachments: zirconia bar and cobalt chromium bar.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty completely edentulous patients were divided into two equal groups: Group I (ZrO2), each patient received mandibular implant overdenture retained with CAD/CAM zirconia bar on two implants in the canine region, and Group II (Co-Cr), each patient received mandibular overdenture retained with conventional casted cobalt chromium metal bar. Patient satisfaction was measured with a survey questionnaire (PSQ-18), and masticatory performance was also evaluated with the two-colour mixing ability test after 3 months of overdenture insertion; then, each patient received a bar attachment from the other type and evaluations were repeated.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed regarding psychological acceptance (appearance), time, hygiene, undergo procedures, recommend procedures and the overall experience. In contrast, insignificant difference was observed regarding speech, chewing capacity, restorative procedures, complications and information prior to treatment. No significant difference was reported when comparing chewing performance between the two types of bar attachment.

CONCLUSION

Within this clinical study limitations, patient satisfaction with zirconia bar was higher than Co-Cr bar in terms of appearance, time, hygiene, undergo procedures, recommend procedures and the overall experience. Zirconia can become a suitable alternative to cobalt chromium alloys as a bar attachment. Combining the advantages of implant supported overdenture, CAD/CAM zirconia bar as an attachment, a satisfactory non-metal prosthesis could be provided.

Immediate vs conventional loading of mandibular overdentures: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Clinicians treating overdenture patients need to know if immediate loading and conventional loading results in similar outcomes. This study aimed to perform a systematic literature search of studies comparing immediate and conventional loading of mandibular overdentures irrespective of the number of implants and conduct a meta-analysis of implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL). A literature search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Ovoid, Springer, and Google Scholar databases was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate vs conventional loading of mandibular overdentures. The primary outcome was implant failure and the secondary outcome was marginal bine loss (MBL). A descriptive analysis was performed for other outcomes. Thirteen trials were included. Only one trial compared the immediate and delayed loading of single implant-supported overdenture. Seven trials used two implants, one trial used three implants while four trials used four implants. Meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in implant failure and MBL between immediate and conventional loading of two-implant and four-implant supported overdentures. Descriptive analysis indicated no difference in peri-implant tissue indices, implant stability, and quality of life outcomes between the two loading protocols.There may be no difference in implant failure and MBL with immediate loading or conventional loading of two and four-implant supported mandibular overdentures. Literature review indicates that there may be no difference in peri-implant tissue indices, implant stability, and QoL outcomes between the two loading protocols. The overall quality of evidence is moderate. Further, adequately powered RCTs are required to strengthen the evidence.

Immediate or delayed loading protocols for two-implant mandibular overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The immediate loading protocol for 2-implant mandibular overdentures has been widely reported. Nevertheless, the clinical effects reported in different articles are quite different.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to compare the clinical effects of immediate and delayed loading of 2-implant mandibular overdentures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The review followed the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, CBM, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases were searched electronically for RCTs published before March 25, 2020. Two authors independently conducted literature screening, quality assessment, and data extraction. The outcomes of interest were implant failure rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability quotient (ISQ), periotest value (PTV), and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 2498 unduplicated records were identified. After full-text analysis, 7 eligible RCTs were included. All studies were followed for at least 12 months, and the meta-analysis was based on this. The meta-analysis showed that the implant failure rate in the immediate group was higher than that in the delayed group, but there was no statistically significant difference (I²=0%; n=7; risk difference [RD]=0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.01 to 0.08). The difference of MBL between immediate and delayed loading was not significant (I²=88%; n=6; mean difference [MD]=-0.04; 95% CI=-0.16 to 0.24). Because of the limited articles reporting on ISQ, PTV, and patient satisfaction, no quantitative analysis was conducted for these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the implant failure rate was more likely to favor the delayed group, available evidence indicates no statistical difference in implant failure and marginal bone loss between immediate and delayed loading protocols.

Implant loss and crestal bone loss in immediate versus delayed load in edentulous mandibles: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The current trend is to shorten the loading times of dental implants. However, information about the risk of early loss of implants that have been loaded immediately is scant if compared with data available for those conventionally loaded.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to study immediate (IL) and delayed loading (DL) protocols in edentulous mandibles to determine whether differences exist in implant success and crestal bone loss and to evaluate these possible differences in relation to the type of prosthesis and the splinting of the implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The literature review was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Nine randomized clinical trials were included.

RESULTS

The result of a meta-analysis of implant loss before 1 year was 2.63 (95% CI: 1.22, 5.68), favoring the DL control group, while the outcome for crestal bone loss at the observation year was 0.42 (95% CI: -0.35, 1.20), with a tendency toward reduced bone loss for DL.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of early loss in the IL group was higher than that in the DL group. For removable prostheses and nonsplinted implants, DL was preferred. The quality of scientific evidence significantly favors DL.