The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

  • 제4권4호
  • /
  • Pages.197-203
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 2005-7806(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-7814(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review

  • Kim, Ha-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, KUMC, Korea University) ;
  • Lee, Jeong-Yol (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, KUMC, Korea University) ;
  • Shin, Sang-Wan (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, KUMC, Korea University) ;
  • Bryant, S. Ross (Department of Prosthetics and Dental Geriatrics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of British Columbia Vancouver)
  • 투고 : 2012.10.04
  • 심사 : 2012.11.12
  • 발행 : 2012.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

PURPOSE. The aim of this systematic review was to address treatment outcome according to attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures in terms of implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance and complications, and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and hand searching of relevant journals considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Clinical trial studies on mandibular implant overdentures until August, 2010 were selected if more than one type of overdenture attachment was reported. Twenty four studies from 1098 studies were finally included and the data on implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance and complications, patient satisfaction were analyzed relative to attachment systems. RESULTS. Four studies presented implant survival rates (95.8 - 97.5% for bar, 96.2 - 100% for ball, 91.7% for magnet) according to attachment system. Ten other studies presented an implant survival rate ranging from 93.3% to 100% without respect to the attachment groups. Common prosthetic maintenance and complications were replacement of an assay for magnet attachments, and activation of a matrix or clip for ball or bar attachments. Prosthetic maintenance and complications most commonly occurred in the magnet groups. Conflicting findings were found on the rate of prosthetic maintenance and complications comparing ball and bar attachments. Most studies showed no significant differences in patient satisfaction depending upon attachment systems. CONCLUSION. The implant survival rate of mandibular overdentures seemed to be high regardless attachment systems. The prosthetic maintenance and complications may be influenced by attachment systems. However patient satisfaction may be independent of the attachment system.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. van Waas MA. The influence of clinical variables on patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:307-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90202-N
  2. Awad MA, Feine JS. Measuring patient satisfaction with mandibular prostheses. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1998;26:400-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1998.tb01978.x
  3. Carlsson GE. Clinical morbidity and sequelae of treatment with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70188-X
  4. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais J, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:601-2.
  5. British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry. The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009;17:164-5.
  6. Ma S, Tawse-Smith A, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Marginal bone loss with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different loading protocols and attachment systems: 10-year outcomes. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:321-32.
  7. Andreiotelli M, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthodontic complications with implant overdentures: a systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:195-203.
  8. Assuncao WG, Barao VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology 2010;27:154-62.
  9. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 2006;15:24-34. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000202419.21665.36
  10. Needleman IG. A guide to systematic reviews. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:6-9.
  11. Davis DM, Packer ME. Mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech implants with either ball attachments or magnets: 5-year results. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:222-9.
  12. Davis DM, Packer ME. The maintenance requirements of mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech implants using three different attachment mechanisms-balls, magnets, and bars; 3-year results. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2000;8:131-4.
  13. Davis DM, Rogers JO, Packer ME. The extent of maintenance required by implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 3- year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:767-74.
  14. Wismeijer D, van Waas MA, Mulder J, Vermeeren JI, Kalk W. Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with three treatment modalities for overdentures on implants of the ITI Dental Implant System. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:297-306. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100406.x
  15. Davis DM. Implant supported overdentures-the King's experience. J Dent 1997;25:33-7.
  16. Mericske-Stern R, Steinlin Schaffner T, Marti P, Geering AH. Peri-implant mucosal aspects of ITI implants supporting overdentures. A five-year longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:9-18. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050102.x
  17. Naert I, Quirynen M, Hooghe M, van Steenberghe D. A comparative prospective study of splinted and unsplinted Branemark implants in mandibular overdenture therapy: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:486-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90188-0
  18. Gotfredsen K. Implant supported overdentures-the Copenhagen experience. J Dent 1997;25:39-42.
  19. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A 5-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and un splinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:170-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090304.x
  20. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:195-202. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00369.x
  21. Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:125-30.
  22. Walton JN. A randomized clinical trial comparing two mandibular implant overdenture designs: 3-year prosthetic outcomes using a six-field protocol. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:255-60.
  23. Naert I, Alsaadi G, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. A 10-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures: peri-implant outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:695-702.
  24. Kleis WK, Kammerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:209-18.
  25. Stoker GT, Wismeijer D, van Waas MA. An eight-year followup to a randomized clinical trial of aftercare and cost-analysis with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res 2007;86:276-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910708600315
  26. Walton JN, MacEntee MI, Glick N. One-year prosthetic outcomes with implant overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:391-8.
  27. MacEntee MI, Walton JN, Glick N. A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: three-year results. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.10.013
  28. Payne AG, Solomons YF. Mandibular implant-supported overdentures: a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3 different attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:246-53.
  29. Cune M, Burgers M, van Kampen F, de Putter C, van der Bilt A. Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:310-7.
  30. Wismeijer D, van Waas MA, Vermeeren JI, Mulder J, Kalk W. Patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures. A comparison of three treatment strategies with ITI-dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26:263-7.
  31. Timmerman R, Stoker GT, Wismeijer D, Oosterveld P, Vermeeren JI, van Waas MA. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of participant satisfaction with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res 2004;83:630-3. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300809
  32. Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:401-10.
  33. Gallucci GO, Morton D, Weber HP. Loading protocols for dental implants in edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:132-46.
  34. Riley MA, Williams AJ, Speight JD, Walmsley AD, Harris IR. Investigations into the failure of dental magnets. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:249-54.
  35. Saygili G, Sahmali S. Retentive forces of two magnetic systems compared with two precision attachments. J Oral Sci 1998;40:61-4. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.40.61
  36. Riley MA, Walmsley AD, Harris IR. Magnets in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:137-42. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115533
  37. Ceruti P, Bryant SR, Lee JH, MacEntee MI. Magnet-retained implant- supported overdentures: review and 1-year clinical report. J Can Dent Assoc 2010;76:a52.
  38. Watson GK, Payne AG, Purton DG, Thomson WM. Mandibular overdentures: comparative evaluation of prosthodontic maintenance of three different implant systems during the first year of service. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:259-66.
  39. Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Mandibular twoimplant overdentures: prosthodontic maintenance using different loading protocols and attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:405-16.
  40. Walton JN, Huizinga SC, Peck CC. Implant angulation: a measurement technique, implant overdenture maintenance, and the influence of surgical experience. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:523-30.
  41. Assad AS, Abd El-Dayem MA, Badawy MM. Comparison between mainly mucosa-supported and combined mucosa-implant- supported mandibular overdentures. Implant Dent 2004;13:386-94.
  42. Abd El-Dayem MA, Assad AS, Eldin Sanad ME, Mahmoud Mogahed SA. Comparison of prefabricated and custom-made bars used for implant-retained mandibular complete overdentures. Implant Dent 2009;18:501-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181b4f857

피인용 문헌

  1. Immediate Loading of Two Dental Implants, in Edentulous Mandibles, with Locator® Attachments or Dolder® Bars: First Results from a Prospective Randomized Clinical Study vol.17, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12173
  2. Patient perceptions of the mandibular three-implant overdenture: a practice-based study vol.26, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12351
  3. A prospective study of changes in oral health-related quality of life during immediate function implant procedures for edentulous individuals vol.26, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12371
  4. Standardizing the evaluation criteria on treatment outcomes of mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review vol.6, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.5.325
  5. Immediate Loading of Dental Implants in Edentulous Mandibles by Use of Locator® Attachments or Dolder® Bars: Two-Year Results from a Prospective Randomized Clinical Study vol.18, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12349
  6. Rehabilitation With Mandibular Implant-Retained Complete Overdenture Using the Association of Two Retention Systems vol.27, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000002954
  7. Patient-reported outcome and its association with attachment type and bone volume in mandibular implant overdenture vol.28, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12831
  8. Long-term clinical and prosthetic outcomes of soft liner and clip attachments for bar/implant overdentures: a randomised controlled clinical trial vol.44, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12500
  9. Bar versus ball attachments for implant-supported overdentures in complete edentulism: A systematic review pp.15230899, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12551
  10. Retreatment of fractured implant overdenture due to long-term maintenance failure vol.56, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2018.56.3.235
  11. A preliminary comparison of masticatory performances between immediately loaded and conventionally loaded mandibular two-implant overdentures with magnetic attachments vol.21, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12698
  12. The Effect of Two Different Attachments with Implant Retained Mandibular Overdentures on the Masticatory Function vol.4, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.15406/jdhodt.2016.04.00101
  13. 상악 무치악 환자에서 가공 지르코니아 바와 PEKK 슬리브를 이용한 임플란트 피개의치 증례 vol.33, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2017.33.4.307
  14. Retention Force and Wear Characteristics of three Attachment Systems after Dislodging Cycles vol.29, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201802074
  15. A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay vol.30, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13408
  16. Five‐year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance—Influence of bone resorption and implant position vol.30, pp.9, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13501
  17. Comparison of Two Low-Profile Prosthetic Retention System Interfaces: Preliminary Data of an In Vitro Study vol.1, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis1010007
  18. A comparison of the retentive force of ball and socket attachment versus magnet attachment in mandibular overdentures: A randomized control trial vol.12, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4103/jioh.jioh_20_20
  19. Clinical denture base deformation with different attachments used to stabilize implant overdentures: A crossover study vol.31, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13552
  20. Comparison of stress induced in mandible around an implant-supported overdenture with locator attachment and telescopic crowns – a finite element analysis vol.93, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-1312
  21. Computerised occlusal analysis of mini‐dental implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: A 1‐year prospective clinical study vol.47, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12969
  22. Mandibular implant-supported overdenture: A systematic review and meta-analysis for optimum selection of attachment system vol.21, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_158_21
  23. A 5-Year Retrospective Study Evaluating Periodontal Health and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of Implant-Supported Overdentures With Locator and Magnetic Attachments vol.47, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-20-00064
  24. Rationale for Mini Dental Implant Treatment vol.47, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-19-00317
  25. Masticatory performances and maximum occlusal forces of immediate and conventional loaded two-implant supported overdentures retained by magnetic attachments: preliminary study of randomized controlle vol.7, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00342-x
  26. Treatment outcomes of implant-assisted removable partial denture with distal extension based on the Kennedy classification and attachment type: a systematic review vol.7, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00394-z
  27. Patient-reported outcomes with immediate-loaded two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures: Results of a 5-year prospective study vol.17, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2021.04.011