LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 25 , Issue 1
January/February 2010

Pages 163–180


Systematic Review of Prosthetic Maintenance Requirements for Implant-Supported Overdentures

Murat Cavit Cehreli, DDS, PhD/Durdu Karasoy, MSc, PhD/Ali Murat Kokat, DDS, PhD/Kivanc Akca, DDS, PhD/Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS


PMID: 20209199

Purpose: To evaluate prosthetic maintenance requirements for implant-retained/supported overdentures via a review of the literature. Materials and Methods: Using the combined search terms “implant and overdenture,” “implant-supported overdenture,” “implant-retained overdenture,” and “implant-anchored overdenture,” along with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, eligible articles between 1997 and 2008 (up to April 1) were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, the Cochrane Library databases, and seven journals by hand-searching. The initial search yielded 3,120 titles, and 287 articles were assigned to full-text analysis. Upon classification of the prosthetic complications with regard to the jaws treated and the attachment systems used, within- and between-group comparative frequency analyses were undertaken with the Kruskal-Wallis test or the Mann-Whitney U test at P < .05. Results: A total of 49 articles were included. Within- and between-group evaluations with regard to jaw treated as well as the attachment systems used showed that the frequency of complications did not change over time (P > .05). The differences detected were more matrix replacements after 5 years in the maxilla and mandible and more matrix replacements and patrix fractures after the first year in the mandible (P < .05). Among the attachment systems, a dislodged, worn, or loose matrix or its respective housing was more common in the ball-attachment group after the first year (P < .05). Prosthetic complications for all types of attachments were comparable (P > .05), except for the differences in peri-implant or interabutment mucosal enlargement rates after 1 year. Conclusions: Prosthetic maintenance requirements for overdentures on both jaws seem to be comparable. The impact of attachment system on the prosthetic outcome is negligible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:163–180


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help