Patient satisfaction with ball and Equator attachments for single‐implant mandibular overdentures: A short‐term randomised crossover clinical trial

Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical performance of implant-retained mandibular overdentures with stud and ball attachments: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Evidence regarding the retention system for a mandibular overdenture is important for treatment planning. However, the clinical performance of stud and ball attachments for mandibular overdenture retainers is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical performance and self-reported patient outcomes of ball and stud attachments as mandibular overdenture retainers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized (N-RCTs) controlled clinical trials were selected based on the eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration Tools, and the certainty of the evidence (COE) by using the grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) workshop approach. Meta-analyses according to the follow-up period were performed for implant survival, prosthetic maintenance and complications, bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs and 4 N-RCTs were included. Twelve studies presented a high risk of bias. The stud demonstrated a lower risk ratio (RR) (P<.001) for maintenance and complications concerning the need for matrix activation (RR 7.12 [2.65, 19.15]) (very low COE) and new overdentures (RR 2.47 [1.02, 5.96]) (moderate COE), ranging from 1 to 5 years of follow-up. Mean difference (MD) for MBL after 1 (MD 0.40 [0.28, 0.52]; P<.001) and 5 years (MD 0.18 [0.16, 0.20]; P<.001) was higher for ball attachments than that for stud (very low COE) attachments. Stud attachments also improved satisfaction (P<.001) when compared with ball attachments (very low COE). Implant survival rate (high COE), BoP (very low COE), and OHRQoL (low COE) were similar for the attachments.

CONCLUSIONS

Stud and ball attachments are clinically appropriate options as mandibular overdenture retainers and are capable of restoring OHRQoL. Nevertheless, the stud showed greater improvement in satisfaction and less prosthetic aftercare and MBL.

Patient satisfaction and crestal bone changes with one-piece and two-piece single implant-retained mandibular overdenture: A randomized controlled clinical study

PURPOSE

The present study was done to assess patient satisfaction and crestal bone changes with one-piece and two-piece single implant-retained mandibular overdentures (SIMOs).

METHODS

The participants included in Group 1 (n=12) received one-piece SIMOs; the participants in Group 2 (n=12) received two-piece SIMOs.Scheduled follow-ups were done at 1 month and 1 year after implant placement. Patient satisfaction and crestal bone changes were evaluated. The data obtained were analyzed statistically with independent Student t-test.

RESULTS

Visual analogue scale (VAS) score for patient satisfaction with one-piece and two-piece SIMOs were statistically significant at 1-year of follow-up. The patient satisfaction level on the VAS score increased (38.1 to 51.1) with group one-piece SIMOs and two-piece SIMOs (36.6 to 46.8) at baseline to 1 month (P=0.13). The patient satisfaction level increased (38.1 to 56.6) with group one-piece SIMOs and two-piece SIMOs (36.6 to 52.2) at baseline to 1 year (P=0.03). At the 1 year follow-ups, group 1 had mean crestal bone loss of 0.80 ± 0.49 mm and group 2 had 1.24 ± 0.90 mm (P=0.16). Crestal bone loss was greater in the two-piece SIMOs group at 1 month and 1 year follow-ups, but statistically it was insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

One-piece SIMOs seemed to be a viable treatment option with increased patient satisfaction on a VAS. Crestal bone loss was greater in the patients with two-piece SIMOs during follow-up. One-piece SIMOs was comparatively simple with less invasive procedures and needed fewer components,so considerable number of patients requiring implant retained dentures could be benefited.

The effect of ball versus locator attachment system on the performance of implant supported overdenture: A systematic review

Objective

This systematic review was aimed to compare ball and locator attachment system on the basis of clinical and biomechanical performance of implant supported overdenture as well as biological and patient related outcomes.

Material and methods

Open and free electronic and manual searches were performed in digital databases including MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, and Scopus along with some other reliable sources. From the 667 retrieved records, 11 full-text controlled trials were included in this study. Risk of bias was assessed according to RoB 2.0 except for one RCT (economic evaluation), only assessed by CASP checklist.

Results

From the 11 retrieved studies, total 183 locator and 219 ball attachments were identified in 452 subjects of 30 yrs-95 yrs of age. Studies provided data about prosthodontic complications or maintenance (replacement or the activation of matrix and patrix part, loss of retention, fracture and relining of the prosthesis, fracture of the attachment and the survival probability), oral health impact profile, soft tissue parameters and periodontal complications, marginal bone loss, patient related outcome and cost of the attachment systems. Only 5 studies were assessed at low risk bias, while other 6 at moderate to high risk of bias.

Conclusion

Locator attachment system show lesser complications including loss of retention and lower maintenance appointments, lesser soft tissue, and periodontal complications than the ball attachment. Ball is better in terms of cost effectiveness. In other related outcomes, no significant differences were noted between ball and locator attachment.

Retention of bar clip attachment for mandibular implant overdenture

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the retention and loss of retention after fatigue testing at different time intervals between two types of bar clip materials (digitally designed PEEK bar clip and regular Nylon bar clip).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An epoxy model was constructed for a completely edentulous mandible. Two implants were placed according to prosthetically driven implant placement by a computer-guided surgical stent. Bar clips were digitally designed, 3D printed, and pressed into Poly Ether Ether Ketone (PEEK). Pick up of PEEK and nylon clips was performed on the dentures fitting surface using self-cured acrylic resin. Each study group was subjected to an insertion and removal fatigue test simulating 3 years of patient usage. Retention values were recorded using the universal testing machine at initial retention and after 1, 2, and 3 years of simulated usage. For proper sample sizing, 24 models and dentures (12 for each group) were used. An independent sample t-test and repeated measures analysis of variance were used to compare the data.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences in retention between the PEEK and nylon bar clips at the beginning of the experiment (p = 0.000*). But after 3 years of simulated use, there was no significant difference in retention between the test groups (p = 0.055, NS). After 3 years of simulated use, the retention of PEEK clips decreased by - 58.66% recording 17.37 ± 1.07 N, while the retention of nylon clip increased by + 2.99% recording 16.56 ± 0.88 N.

CONCLUSION

The digitally designed PEEK clip showed comparable retention results to the nylon clip after 3 years of simulated use.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Maintenance of bar attachment with PEEK clip offers a clinical solution after the wear of normal plastic clips, which is a cheap solution that is easily fabricated and picked up into the denture. Digital fabricated PEEK bar retentive inserts can be used in cases of bar attachment wear.

Immediately loaded single-implant mandibular overdentures compared to conventional complete dentures: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) has been proposed as an alternative to more complex overdenture designs as a simplified implant intervention for edentulous patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to run a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing the SIMO and the conventional complete denture (CCD) treatment. Imediately loaded external hexagon implant and ball attachment were used for the overdenture goup. Direct costs related to therapies were identified and valuated throughout a 1-year period after delivery, in Brazilian currency (R$) and converted into international dollars (I$) using purchase power parity exchange rates. Treatment effectiveness was measured using the OHIP-Edent and satisfaction scores for calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

RESULTS

Outcomes were assessed at the 1-year follow-up for 65 patients (CCD=34; SIMO=31). Overall OHIP-Edent and satisfaction scores improved significantly in the SIMO group, while remained unchanged in the CCD group. The mean overall costs were R$1,179.04 (I$590.99) for the CCD group and R$2,127.91 (I$1,068.20) for the SIMO group - 80.7% incremental cost for SIMO. The ICER calculation for SIMO treatment showed a mean cost of I$48.20 for 1-point reduction in OHIP-Edent scores, and I$12.56 for 1-point increase in satisfaction score.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support the effectiveness of this simplified and low-cost implant intervention for edentulous patients. SIMO also seems a cost-effective alternative to the CCD and the relatively low incremental cost may potentially increase the utilization of dental implants among older subjects, especially those with limited financial resources.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The immediately loaded single-implant mandibular overdenture was superior to the conventional complete denture in terms of patient-reported outcome measures at a low incremental cost.

Masticatory Ability for a Single Implant Mandibular Overdenture Retained by Two Different Attachments: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the masticatory ability subjectively between ball and Cendres+Métaux Locator (CM-LOC) attachment for a single implant retained mandibular overdenture throughout a 24-month follow-up period.

Materials and Methods

Eighty completely edentulous patients were recruited. All patients received new complete dentures, and masticatory ability was recorded using a questionnaire (baseline record). All patients received a single implant in the midline of the completely edentulous mandible. After 3-month healing period, patients were randomized using sealed envelopes into two groups: ball or CM-LOC attachment. The same masticatory ability questionnaire was used to record masticatory ability for both groups after 2 weeks of pickup and 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Comparison between the study groups was done using Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples. Two-sided P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The mean masticatory scores improved for both attachments, with no statistically significant difference between them throughout the 24-month follow-up. The CM-LOC attachment group showed a greater improvement change in masticatory ability after 6- and 12-month follow-up (−12.47 ± 12.006, −11.46 ± 14.625; P=0.826), while the ball attachment group showed a slight improvement after the 24-month follow-up (−11.72 ± 12.368, −10.88 ± 11.963; P=0.778).

Conclusion

Single implant retained mandibular overdenture improved masticatory ability subjectively with no significant difference between both attachments used although the ball attachment showed better masticatory ability scores after 24-month follow-up.

Do ball-type attachment systems for overdenture result in better patient-satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized crossover clinical trial

Objective

This review is to compare patient-satisfaction with ball-type overdenture attachment systems with others attachment systems.

Material and methods

This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018097234) and adheres the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for published articles were performed before October 2020. The PICO question was: “Do patients with a ball-type overdenture retention system have greater satisfaction, when compared to other attachment systems?” The evaluation of risk of bias was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Results

After searching the databases, seven articles were selected out of a total of 2583. A total of 312 implants were placed in 139 patients, with a mean age of 65.9 years. The risk of bias in the included studies varied according to the different domains in a risk of uncertain bias or low bias risk. No difference was found between the ball attachment systems and the others systems, with respect to patient-satisfaction. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between the ball systems and another systems (P = 0.11; MD: 10.90; 95% CI: −2.55 to 24.35).

Conclusions

Regarding patient general satisfaction, it was not possible to determine differences between the ball system and another types of attachment system for overdenture. The ball-type system was statistically superior only to the magnet system.

Single implant overdenture reinforced with a metallic framework: A 2-year clinical follow-up

INTRODUCTION

To prevent single-implant overdenture (SIO) fracture, the inclusion of a framework in the overdenture has been suggested. However, no investigations verified their benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate prosthetic maintenance events, patient satisfaction, and mastication of SIO reinforced by metallic framework users.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifteen volunteers had a new set of complete dentures converted into an SIO containing a framework. Maintenance events were recorded, while patient satisfaction was assessed using a visual analog scale. Masticatory performance (MP) was evaluated using the sieving method, maximum bite force (MBF) by pressure sensors, and masseter thickness by ultrasound. Measurements were performed 2, 12, and 24 months after SIO use. Repeated-measures ANOVA and paired Student's t-tests (p < 0.05) were applied.

RESULTS

Matrix exchange was the most prevalent maintenance event (83.6%), and no SIO was fractured during the entire follow-up. Satisfaction with the SIO stability decreased (p < 0.01) after 12 months. MP did not change between evaluations (p > 0.05). Conversely, MBF and masseter thickness improved after 12 and 24 months of SIO use (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Reinforced SIO did not fracture during 2 years but requires maintenance. It improves bite force and muscle thickness, maintaining MP values. Satisfaction with SIO stability decreased in the first year of use.

Patient-reported outcome measures of edentulous patients restored with single-implant mandibular overdentures: A systematic review

AIM

To review the literatures concerning the effect of the single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and masticatory function in the fully edentulous patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science) were searched, complemented with manual resources. Prospective studies published in English up to February 2020 reporting the effect of SIMO on PROMs and masticatory function in the edentulous patients were included. This review focused on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), satisfaction and masticatory function outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 1157 initially screened articles, 9 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 prospective studies involving 551 subjects fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two RCTs were graded as high risk of bias or some concern, while others were low risk. All prospective studies had adequate representativeness and assessment, but only one study had a controlled cohort. In general, the edentulous patients restored with SIMOs had improved OHRQoL and general satisfaction compared to those with conventional complete dentures (CCDs), but the outcome of masticatory function was controversial. Compared with two-implant mandibular overdenture (TIMO), SIMO showed no significant differences regarding general satisfaction and satisfaction with speech, comfort, chewing ability, aesthetics and social life. Conflicting results were observed in OHRQoL and satisfaction with retention and stability. Better masticatory performance was observed in TIMO group than SIMO group.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitation of this review, SIMO is featured with better OHRQoL and satisfaction than CCD. SIMO and TIMO rendered similar patient satisfaction, but TIMO had better masticatory performance.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

AIM

To evaluate the survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction of different attachments used in implant overdenture.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic search of peer-review articles published between 2001 and 2019 assessing the attachments used for implant-supported overdentures was done according to PRISMA Guidelies. The review evaluated sixteen articles related to survival of the attachments, the reaction of the soft and hard tissues along with repair and maintenance of the attachments, and overall performance of the overdenture attachments.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

There is statistically significant heterogeneity (Q =374.7403, df = 15, and P < 0.0001). The statistics of fixed-effect model reported an MD of - 0.0880 (95% CI = -0.1536; 0.0225).

RESULT

The review evaluated the 16 articles that met with the inclusion and search criteria. The studies were the combination of bar and ball attachments and their subtypes, magnetic and bar attachments, and locator in combination with other attachments. The meta-analysis of combined 16 studies reported acceptable heterogeneity among 16 studies (I 2 = 96%) and reported to be statistically significant (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The survival rate of attachments was in the range of 95.8%-97.5% for bar, 96.2%-100% for ball, 90%-92% for magnet and locator attachments were in the range of 97% after a mean follow-up period of 3 years. The bar attachments reported moderate tissue reaction in the form of mucosal changes, gingival inflammation, and bone resorption. The locator attachments require higher maintenance and repair. The magnetic attachments produce higher bone resorption and readily displace under functional force. Patient satisfaction and compliance was higher for ball, locator, and bar attachments as well as low for magnetic attachment. Thus, the ball and locator attachments excellently perform in terms of survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction.