Projecting trends in the disease burden of adult edentulism in China between 2020 and 2030: a systematic study based on the global burden of disease

Purpose

This study was based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database and aimed to analyze the trend of disease burden for complete edentulism in Chinese adults between 1990 and 2030, and to provide valuable information for the development of more effective management and preventive measures.

Methods

Data on Chinese adults with complete edentulism from 1990 to 2019 was analyzed using GHDx data. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze changes in the prevalence and burden of complete edentulism, gender and age distribution between 1990 and 2019. In addition, we used an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model to predict the trend of disease burden for Chinese adults with complete edentulism between 2020 and 2030.

Results

The incidence, prevalence, and rate of YLDs in adults with complete edentulism in China showed an increasing trend from 1990 to 2019. In 2019, the incidence was 251.20 per 100,000, the prevalence was 4512.78 per 100,000, and the YLDs were 123.44 per 100,000, marking increases of 20.58, 94.18, and 93.12% from 1990. Males experienced a higher increase than females. However, the standardized rates decreased over the same period. The ARIMA model predicts a subsequent upward and then downward trend for all indicators between 2019 and 2030, except for the standardized incidence rate which remained essentially unchanged. Specifically, the incidence is predicted to decrease from 388.93 to 314.40 per 100,000, prevalence from 4512.78 to 3049.70 per 100,000, and YLDs from 123.44 to 103.44 per 100,000. The standardized prevalence and YLDs rates are also expected to decrease.

Conclusion

The burden of complete edentulism in China is projected to show an increasing trend from 2020 to 2022 and a decreasing trend from 2023 to 2030. Despite the decline in the burden of disease associated with complete edentulism in China, many problems remain to be solved.

Rehabilitation of full-arch edentulism with fixed or removable dentures retained by root-form dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical research in the last 10 years

AIM

To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on the rehabilitation of full-arch edentulism with implant-supported fixed or removable prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A protocol-oriented search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (PROSPERO registration CRD42021265179) from 1 January 2011 to 27 July 2021 to identify longitudinal studies reporting on the rehabilitation of edentulous patients with implant-supported prostheses. The primary aim of this study was the collection of all objectively reported outcomes in each study. Secondary aims included the description of the methods of assessment and analytical methods. Risk of bias was applied according to the study design (randomized controlled trial, cohort study, or descriptive pre-post study). Individual study data were extracted into an outcomes matrix. Outcomes were grouped into domains and descriptively analysed. A network diagram was generated to establish relationships between domains. The present review follows the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

The screening and selection processes resulted in the identification of 491 publications, corresponding to 421 different studies (cohorts of patients). Only 24% of the studies reported the use of EQUATOR network guidelines. Implant failure/survival was the most reported outcome (270 studies), but the criterion to determine implant failure and/or survival was frequently not described or was ambiguous. Implant success was much less frequently reported (88) and was based on several heterogenous composite definitions. Marginal bone levels (233 studies), technical complications (158), and clinical outcomes (150), including peri-implant soft tissue and implant stability assessment, were also frequently reported. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (145) and function-based outcomes (40) were predominantly reported in isolation from other outcomes and most frequently in removable restorations. While quality of life was evaluated using valid instruments, patient satisfaction was evaluated based on a common sense concept of satisfaction. Economic outcomes were under-reported (13).

CONCLUSIONS

There is great heterogeneity in the criteria to define implant failure or survival and implant success, which prevents the comparison of rates across studies. Even though studies frequently report multiple outcomes, PROMs are usually reported in isolation from other outcomes. It would be valuable to have a set of core outcome variables and standardized methods of measurement for future studies.

Rehabilitation of full-arch edentulism with fixed or removable dentures retained by root-form dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical research in the last 10 years

AIM

To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on the rehabilitation of full-arch edentulism with implant-supported fixed or removable prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A protocol-oriented search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (PROSPERO registration CRD42021265179) from 1 January 2011 to 27 July 2021 to identify longitudinal studies reporting on the rehabilitation of edentulous patients with implant-supported prostheses. The primary aim of this study was the collection of all objectively reported outcomes in each study. Secondary aims included the description of the methods of assessment and analytical methods. Risk of bias was applied according to the study design (randomized controlled trial, cohort study, or descriptive pre-post study). Individual study data were extracted into an outcomes matrix. Outcomes were grouped into domains and descriptively analysed. A network diagram was generated to establish relationships between domains. The present review follows the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

The screening and selection processes resulted in the identification of 491 publications, corresponding to 421 different studies (cohorts of patients). Only 24% of the studies reported the use of EQUATOR network guidelines. Implant failure/survival was the most reported outcome (270 studies), but the criterion to determine implant failure and/or survival was frequently not described or was ambiguous. Implant success was much less frequently reported (88) and was based on several heterogenous composite definitions. Marginal bone levels (233 studies), technical complications (158), and clinical outcomes (150), including peri-implant soft tissue and implant stability assessment, were also frequently reported. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (145) and function-based outcomes (40) were predominantly reported in isolation from other outcomes and most frequently in removable restorations. While quality of life was evaluated using valid instruments, patient satisfaction was evaluated based on a common sense concept of satisfaction. Economic outcomes were under-reported (13).

CONCLUSIONS

There is great heterogeneity in the criteria to define implant failure or survival and implant success, which prevents the comparison of rates across studies. Even though studies frequently report multiple outcomes, PROMs are usually reported in isolation from other outcomes. It would be valuable to have a set of core outcome variables and standardized methods of measurement for future studies.

Bar versus ball attachments for implant-supported overdentures in complete edentulism: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Implant-supported overdenture is one of the most predictable treatment options used in complete edentulism. However, differences have been reported between bar and ball attachments used to retain overdentures in terms of patient satisfaction and prosthesis retention.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of bar and ball attachments for conventionally loaded implant-supported overdentures in completely edentulous patients to improve patient satisfaction and prosthesis retention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted the review according to the Cochrane methods and following MECIR standards. We searched Cochrane Oral Health Group Trial register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and the WHO ICTRP (March 31, 2017). Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio or mean differences, together with their 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

We included 10 trials (465 participants). After 5 y, one trial reported higher patient satisfaction when bar attachment was used (MD 1.30, 95% CI 0.20-2.40), and reported no difference between both systems in prosthesis retention (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.90 to 0.10). Two trials reported no implant failures after 1 and 5 y in both attachments. Downgrading of evidence was based on the unclear risk of bias of included studies and the wide CI crossing the line of no effect.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support bar or ball attachment to be used with implant-supported overdentures in completely edentulous patients to improve patient satisfaction and prosthesis retention (PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014594).

An up to 7-Year Retrospective Analysis of Biologic and Technical Complication With the All-on-4 Concept

The aim of this study was to evaluate retrospectively biologic and technical complications as well as clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with 4 implants according to the All-on-4 protocol and followed up to 7 years of function. Data from 56 consecutive patients presenting complete edentulous jaw, aged 18 years or older, treated between January 2008 and December 2013, were evaluated. The outcomes were implant and prosthetic survival and success rates, any complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL). Two-hundred twenty-four implants were placed in 56 patients. During the entire follow-up, 1 maxillary implant but no prosthesis failed during the healing process. Fourteen patients experienced 1 complication each (10 technical, 4 biologic). The overall implant and prosthetic success rate was 98.2% and 82.1%, respectively. All complications were considered as minor and successfully resolved chairside. A mean MBL of 1.30 ± 0.63 mm was observed at the last follow-up. Statistically significant difference was found for postextractive implants (0.79 ± 0.26) vs implants placed in healed sites (1.03 ± 0.46; P = 0.024). Within the limits of the present study, the All-on-4 concept may be a valuable surgical and prosthetic option for the treatment of complete edentulous jaws. However, minor technical and biologic complications can occur. Further long-term prospective data with primary outcomes focused on success rates are needed.