Overdenture locator attachments for atrophic mandible

An update on attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: A review

The present systematic review aims to evaluate the global use of attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures, focusing on their impact on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction and prosthesis stability. Mandibular overdentures supported by implants have become a standard of care for edentulous patients, with various attachment systems such as bar, ball and locators being commonly utilized. The review synthesizes findings from numerous studies, examining differences in retention, ease of maintenance, cost-effectiveness and long-term success rates across different attachment modalities. The analysis also delves into patient-centered outcomes, including comfort, ease of use and quality of life, providing a comprehensive overview of the efficacy of each system. By comparing and contrasting these systems, the review identifies trends and preferences in clinical practice, highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. The findings indicate that while all systems show promise in enhancing the functionality of mandibular overdentures, patient-specific factors and clinician preferences play crucial roles in the selection process.

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.

Maxillary implant overdentures retained by use of bars or locator attachments: 1-year findings from a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Comparison of outcomes of maxillary implant overdentures retained by use of either locator attachments or bars in a 1-year randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Fifty edentulous participants received four maxillary implants. They were allocated to two groups (n = 25) differing in type of prosthetic attachment used to retain the maxillary prosthesis: either locator attachments or bars were applied. After one year, implant and overdenture survival was assessed. Peri-implant hygiene (Plaque-index, presence of calculus), soft tissue conditions (Gingiva-index, Sulcus Bleeding-index and pocket probing depth) and patient satisfaction (oral health impact profile (OHIP-49), denture complaints questionnaire and general satisfaction score (GSS)) were compared. The peri-implant bone level was estimated using intra-oral radiographs (student T-test).

RESULTS

Implant survival was 96.7% in the locator group and 97.9% in the bar group. No overdentures had to be remade. Patient satisfaction was significantly greater in the bar group when rated by OHIP-49 sum score and by GSS. When comparing the denture complaints questionnaire and the separate OHIP-49 item scores, no significant difference was found. There was not a significant difference in hygiene and soft tissue conditions. Marginal bone loss was estimated 0.58 ± 0.71 mm for locators and 0.31 ± 0.47 mm for bars.

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillary overdentures on four implants retained by bars or locators were compared. Bone loss was within an acceptable range for both groups after 1 year. However, less bone was lost in the bar group. Even though both treatment options improved patient satisfaction, bars seem to be particularly beneficial with regard to OHIP-49 sum score.

Retention and patient satisfaction with bar-clip, ball and socket and kerator attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: An in vivo study

Aim:

The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate and compare the retention and patient satisfaction in implant supported mandibular overdenture with three different attachment system.

Materials and Methods:

After evaluation of prosthetic space, fifteen edentulous subjects received two implants in the inter-foramina region of the mandible and were divided into 3 groups with 5 subjects each, delayed loading protocol was followed in all the patients. The retention force and satisfaction level with the attachments at baseline and after 6 months was measured in a standardised way using retentive device and VAS questionnaire. The study was based on evaluation of retention and patient satisfaction. 15 subjects were included in the study. The results obtained were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA test, and multiple comparisons were carried out using the Bonferroni tests.

Results:

At the end of six months, the retention force and satisfaction level was higher in Group 3 (Kerator attachment) as compared to Group 1 (ball and socket attachment) and Group 2 (bar and clip attachment) and patient satisfaction was equal in groups 1, 2 and 3 but the total number of interventions is significantly higher in the attachment bar. Analysis of variance with repeated measures showed significant differences in retention force among the three attachment types.

Conclusion:

(1) Group 3 (kerator attachment) exhibit higher retentive capacities than Group 1 (ball and socket attachment) and Group 2 (bar and clip attachment). (2) patient satisfaction was higher in Group 3 (Kerator attachment) in compare to Group 1 (ball and socket attachment) and Group 2 (bar and clip attachment).

Impact of implant-supported prostheses on nutritional status and oral health perception in edentulous patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Improvement of nutritional status and perception of oral health are supposed to be different with complete conventional denture or implant-supported fixed or removable prostheses. Since no study has been conducted in Lebanon, the aim of our study was to assess the nutritional status and oral heath related quality of life (OHRQoL) in totally edentulous patients after treatment with complete denture or implant supported-prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was an observational clinical prospective study. A convenient sample of Lebanese people aged 60 years or more was selected between September 2013 and July 2015 from the Departments of removable and fixed prosthesis at Saint-Joseph University of Beirut. The treatment options included complete denture, implant-supported complete denture and implant-supported fixed prostheses. Nutritional status and OHRQoL were assessed with the Mini-Nutritional Assessment Index (MNA) and the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) respectively at Baseline (first visit before treatment), 2-3 weeks after treatment (t1), 3 months (t2) and 6 months (t3) after treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-one participants (mean age: 69.39 ± 7.164 years) were included. The results have shown an improvement over time in nutritional status and OHRQoL for all treatment groups. However, 2-3 weeks after treatment the number of participants at risk of malnutrition was higher with complete removable denture, intermediate with implant-supported complete denture and lower with implant-supported fixed prostheses (p-value = 0.049). Moreover, the mean GOHAI score was significantly lower over time with complete removable denture compared to implant-supported prostheses (p-value <0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study has shown an enhancement in the quality of life and the nutritional status for implant supported-prostheses compared to conventional removable dentures. Therefore, it is fundamental that dentists communicate with their patients about implant treatment to understand their expectations, to explain the outcomes and achieve the desired clinical result.