Single-implant overdentures retained by the Novaloc attachment system: study protocol for a mixed-methods randomized cross-over trial

CAD/CAM versus traditional complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient- and clinician-reported outcomes and costs

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) have been increasingly used to enhance the patient and clinician experiences with removable complete dentures (CDs). Yet, evidence from systematic reviews is lacking to validate the clinical significance of these digital prostheses.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare CAD/CAM CDs with the traditional ones in terms of patient and clinician-reported outcomes, post-insertion adjustment visits and costs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of four databases [Medline (Ovid), Embase, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL; last update: May 2022] was performed to retrieve clinical studies comparing CAD/CAM and traditional CDs. Two independent reviewers screened the articles, extracted data (methods and outcomes) and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. The following outcomes underwent meta-analysis (random-effects model): overall patient and clinician satisfaction, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), number of post-insertion adjustment visits, as well as laboratory and total costs.

RESULTS

This review included 11 studies. Meta-analysis revealed that CAD/CAM CDs are comparable to the traditional CDs in terms of overall patient satisfaction and OHRQoL. Clinician-reported data depended on the manufacturing technique: whereas milled CDs performed better than traditional CDs in terms of clinician satisfaction and number of adjustments, 3D printed and traditional CDs were similar. Fabrication of CAD/CAM CDs required significantly less laboratory and overall costs than the traditional CDs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence showing that CAD/CAM CDs are at least comparable to traditional CDs. Further well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the performance of specific CAD/CAM approaches for manufacturing CDs, however.

3D printing vs traditional workflow for the fabrication of mandibular implant overdentures: study protocol for a mixed-methods cross-over RCT

BACKGROUND

Complete tooth loss is a significant global oral health issue, particularly impacting older individuals with lower socioeconomic status. Computer-assisted technologies enhance oral healthcare access by the elderly. Despite promising in vitro reports on digital denture materials, evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is lacking to verify their performance. This cross-over RCT will investigate whether 3D-printed implant-retained mandibular overdentures (IMO) are more satisfactory for edentulous seniors than those made through traditional methods.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will recruit 26 completely edentulous participants (any sex/gender) based on the following eligibility criteria: age ≥ 60 years, no tooth extraction in the past 12 months, two implants in the lower jaw, and need for new dentures in both jaws. Each participant will receive two denture pairs, either manufactured by 3D printing or traditionally, to be worn in a random order. A timeline of 3 months with each denture pair will be considered for outcome assessment (total: 6 months). Patient satisfaction with dentures will be measured by the McGill Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire. We will evaluate other patient-reported outcomes (including oral health-related quality of life) as well as clinician-assessed quality and cost. At the end of the trial, participants will choose which denture pair they wish to keep and interviewed about their experiences with the 3D-printed IMO. The quantitative and qualitative data will be incorporated through an explanatory mixed-methods strategy. A final quantitative assessment will happen after 12 months with the preferred IMO to assess the long-term performance and maintenance needs.

DISCUSSION

This mixed-methods RCT will explore patient experiences with 3D-printed IMOs, aiming to assess the potential for altering clinical practice and dental public health policies. Our results will inform policies by showing whether 3D printing offers comparable outcomes at lower costs, facilitating greater access to oral care for the elderly.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06155630, Registered on 04 December 2023. https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT06155630.

Retention loss and wear assessment of three attachment systems for implant retained-mandibular overdentures: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

The stud-shaped attachment systems (AS) with different shape designs (ball, cylindrical, conical) and materials (metallic, plastic, or a combination of both) are commonly used to provide better retention and stability in implant-retained mandibular overdentures (IRMO).

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate and compare the retention loss and the wear (patterns, location, material loss) of three resilient unsplinted AS: a well-established ball attachment system (BAS) and two more recent cylindrical attachment systems (CAS), Locator R-Tx® and Novaloc®.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The implants, their corresponding abutments, the color-coded or position-coded retention devices (RD), the matrix metal housing were incorporated within CAD/CAM resin blocks and cyclically loaded with 19.6 N along the implant axis in a chewing machine to simulate 10,000 insertion-removal cycles (IRC). At cycle 10, 100, 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000, the retention force was measured using a universal testing machine. The wear was qualitatively examined using a binocular magnifier for both systems, and quantitatively assessed from micro-computed tomography acquisitions for CAS. Material loss exceeding 50 μm was considered significant.

RESULTS

The three AS showed different retentive behavior along time. All the Locator R-Tx® RD lost more than 50 % of their retention after 10,000 IRC. The retention of the Ball System slightly varied over time, the final retention loss in Bmed and Bmax groups being lower than 25 % of the initial retention. Wear was located at the tip of their gold RD and at the equator area of their ball abutment. For Locator R-Tx®, the more retentive the plastic RD, the greater its wear and retention loss. Only Novaloc® maintained a stable retention with even a slight tendency to increase and showed a negligible wear. Implant abutments of the CAS showed no significant wear.

CONCLUSION

After 10,000 IRC, corresponding to approximately 5-years clinical use, almost all RD provided retention force over 5 N, which could be sufficient to maintain satisfaction in most of the patients. The retention loss observed most prominently for the Locator R-Tx®, then for the Ball System, seemed to correlate with the wear observed on their RD. The practitioner may expect less RD maintenance with the Novaloc® stable retention overtime.

Single-Implant Overdentures Retained by a Novel Attachment: A Mixed Methods Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Single-implant mandibular overdentures (SIMOs) are one of the least invasive implant treatments for edentulism. The new Novaloc attachment system can improve the clinical performance of implant-retained overdentures but has not been tested for SIMOs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare Novaloc and a gold standard system (Locator) for SIMOs in an edentate elderly population in terms of patient-reported outcomes and device- and treatment-related complications.

METHODS

In this single-center crossover randomized clinical trial (RCT), 10 edentulous participants received an implant in the lower midline and had their lower complete dentures converted to SIMOs. The participants received each attachment system for 3 mo in a randomized order, followed by measurement of patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life via the McGill Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous People questionnaire, respectively. Complications were registered throughout the RCT. Patients were interviewed for their experiences with SIMOs and preference for one of the attachment systems. Quantitative analysis employed mixed linear models and chi-square tests (α = 0.05), whereas interview data underwent thematic analysis and, in turn, integration into quantitative data (mixed methods explanatory design).

RESULTS

All 10 randomized participants completed the trial. Mean ± SD general satisfaction was 92% ± 8% with Novaloc versus 85% ± 13% with Locator (mean difference, 9%; 95% CI, 1% to 17%). For specific McGill Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire items, only denture stability was significantly increased for Novaloc. Seven participants preferred Novaloc over Locator at the end of the RCT (chi-square, P = 0.045). No difference was found between the attachments in terms of oral health-related quality of life based on the Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous People and complications. Thematic analysis revealed high patient satisfaction with SIMOs, with denture stability the main criterion for their satisfaction and attachment preference.

CONCLUSION

Among elderly edentulous patients wearing SIMOs, Novaloc led to increased patient satisfaction and preference. Better patient-perceived denture stability may explain this result. The attachment systems exhibited similar short-term maintenance needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03126942 (first registered on April 13, 2017). Secondary identifiers: A03-M07-17A (McGill University, Institutional Review Board) and 2018-3873 (McGill University Health Centre, Research Ethics Board).

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

The results of this mixed methods study can be used by clinicians when choosing which attachment system to use for SIMOs. Results suggest that edentulous patients prefer attachments with a better-defined seating position, such as that of the Novaloc system, as opposed to the nylon matrix on metallic abutment of the Locator system.

Evaluation of Retention, Wear, and Maintenance of Attachment Systems for Single- or Two-Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review

Attachment systems (AS) enhance retention and stability by anchoring the overdentures to implants. Since 2002, the McGill consensus statement recommends the 2-implant-retained overdentures as the standard choice for edentulous mandible (2-IRMO). Considering the large number of AS available, it remains difficult for a practitioner to make a reasoned choice. A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Medline and carried out independently by three authors, on retention, wear, and maintenance of AS used clinically or in vitro specifically for 1- or 2-IRMO. The 45 selected studies include 14 clinical and 31 in vitro studies. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The initial retention force of the cylindrical system is higher than the ball system. The retention loss, related to the wear of the retention device, is responsible for the most common need of maintenance, requiring activation or replacement. Plastic retention devices wear out faster and more significantly than metal ones, implying a worse time behavior of cylindrical systems, but their maintenance rate is similar. Neither system appears categorically superior. Cylindrical systems provide higher initial retention than ball ones; this advantage reduces over time with wear without affecting their need for maintenance.