Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2017; 11(04): 559-568
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_23_17
Review Article
Dental Investigation Society

Prosthodontic maintenance and peri-implant tissue conditions for telescopic attachment-retained mandibular implant overdenture: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Ahmed Mohamed Keshk
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen
,
Radhwan S. Algabri
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Mostafa S. Swedan
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Amal Kaddah
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
01 October 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The mandibular implant-retained overdentures (MIRO) are a highly successful prosthetic treatment option. However, an argument still present regarding its design and type of attachment system. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to perform a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the scientific literature regarding the telescopic attachments versus other attachment systems retaining mandibular implant overdentures. Manual and electronic database (PubMed and Cochrane) searches were performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing telescopic versus other attachment systems. Independently, two investigators extracted the trials' data. The Cochrane tool was used for assessing the quality of included studies. Meta-analyses were performed for the included RCTs and reported the same outcome measures. Nine RCTs were identified. Three RCTs (corresponding to four publications) were included in the study. The other five trials were excluded from the study. The meta-analysis revealed no difference between telescopic crowns and ball attachment retaining mandibular implant overdenture as regards prosthodontic maintenance. Regarding peri-implant conditions, ball-retained mandibular overdenture showed statistically significant more probing depth around implants records in ball-retained overdenture when compared to the telescopic group. However, there are no statistically significant differences between two interventions in regard to marginal bone loss, bleeding index, gingival index, and plaque index. In conclusions, no significant differences in prosthodontic maintenance and peri-implant condition between telescopic attachments and ball attachments retaining MIRO. However, this should be considered with caution because of a limited number of included studies.

Key words:

Ball attachment - bar attachment - implant overdenture - systematic review - telescopic attachment
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Michailidis N, Karabinas G, Tsouknidas A, Maliaris G, Tsipas D, Koidis P. A FEM based endosteal implant simulation to determine the effect of peri-implant bone resorption on stress induced implant failure. Biomed Mater Eng 2013; 23: 317-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cicciú M, Beretta M, Risitano G, Maiorana C. Cemented-retained vs. screw-retained implant restorations: An investigation on 1939 dental implants. Minerva Stomatol 2008; 57: 167-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cicciú M, Cervino G, Bramanti E, Lauritano F, Lo Gudice G, Scappaticci L. et al. FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: Evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015: 943839
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kitagawa T, Tanimoto Y, Odaki M, Nemoto K, Aida M. Influence of implant/abutment joint designs on abutment screw loosening in a dental implant system. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005; 75: 457-63
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Karabuda C, Tosun T, Ermis E, Ozdemir T. Comparison of 2 retentive systems for implant-supported overdentures: Soft tissue management and evaluation of patient satisfaction. J Periodontol 2002; 73: 1067-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cune M, van Kampen F, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: A cross-over clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18: 99-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: An in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 720-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kularashmi BS, Anand MV, Bettie NF, Ramachandiran H. A telescopic retainer prosthesis in full mouth rehabilitation. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015; 7 (Suppl. 02) S804-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bayer S, Stark H, Gölz L, Keilig L, Kraus D, Hansen A. et al. Telescopic crowns: Extra-oral and intra-oral retention force measurement – in vitro/in vivo correlation. Gerodontology 2012; 29: e340-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dittmann B, Rammelsberg P. Survival of abutment teeth used for telescopic abutment retainers in removable partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2008; 21: 319-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S, Heussen N. A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: Post-loading implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 174-95
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Carr AB. Successful long-term treatment outcomes in the field of osseointegrated implants: Prosthodontic determinants. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11: 502-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Guckes AD, Scurria MS, Shugars DA. A conceptual framework for understanding outcomes of oral implant therapy. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 75: 633-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29 (Suppl. 03) 197-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 102-10
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 336-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Center For Evidence Based Medicine. Askig Focused Questions. Oxford: University of Oxford; 2014 Available from: http://www.cebm.net [Last accessed on 2014 Jan 01].
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
  • 21 Harris RJ, Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Altman DG, Sterne JA. Metan: Fixed-and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J 2008; 8: 3-28
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cepa S, Koller B, Spies BC, Stampf S, Kohal RJ. Implant-retained prostheses: Ball vs. conus attachments – A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 177-185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Eitner S, Schlegel A, Emeka N, Holst S, Will J, Hamel J. Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: A follow-up investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 530-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Elsyad MA, Khairallah AS. Chewing efficiency and maximum bite force with different attachment systems of implant overdentures: A crossover study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 677-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Heuer W, Kettenring A, Demling A, Stumpp SN, Gellermann E, Winkel A. et al. Microbial diversity of peri-implant biofilms on implant fixed bar and telescopic double crown attachments. J Oral Implantol 2013; 39: 648-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Khalid T, Yunus N, Ibrahim N, Elkezza A, Masood M. Patient-reported outcome and its association with attachment type and bone volume in mandibular implant overdenture. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 535-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Krennmair G, Seemann R, Weinländer M, Piehslinger E. Comparison of ball and telescopic crown attachments in implant-retained mandibular overdentures: A 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 598-606
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Krennmair G, Sütö D, Seemann R, Piehslinger E. Removable four implant-supported mandibular overdentures rigidly retained with telescopic crowns or milled bars: A 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 481-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Krennmair G, Weinländer M, Krainhöfner M, Piehslinger E. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or telescopic crown attachments: A 3-year prospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19: 164-70
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7: 817-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lauritano F, Runci M, Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Bramanti E, Cicciú M. Three-dimensional evaluation of different prosthesis retention systems using finite element analysis and the Von Mises stress test. Minerva Stomatol 2016; 65: 353-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Meriç G, Erkmen E, Kurt A, Eser A, Ozden AU. Biomechanical comparison of two different collar structured implants supporting 3-unit fixed partial denture: A 3-D FEM study. Acta Odontol Scand 2012; 70: 61-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Glenny AM, Nieri M, Worthington H, Espostio M. The importance of the study design: From the case report to the randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2008; 1: 317-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Sylvester RJ, Canfield SE, Lam TB, Marconi L, MacLennan S, Yuan Y. et al. Conflict of evidence: Resolving discrepancies when findings from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses disagree. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 811-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Karabuda C, Yaltirik M, Bayraktar M. A clinical comparison of prosthetic complications of implant-supported overdentures with different attachment systems. Implant Dent 2008; 17: 74-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hartman GA, Cochran DL. Initial implant position determines the magnitude of crestal bone remodeling. J Periodontol 2004; 75: 572-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL. Biologic Width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 559-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 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
    Google Scholar