Premium
Implant survival in 1‐ versus 2‐implant mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Srinivasan Murali,
Makarov Nikolay A.,
Herrmann François R.,
Müller Frauke
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12513
Subject(s) - implant , meta analysis , dentistry , medicine , orthodontics , surgery
Objective This systematic review was performed to compare the survival of 1‐ vs. 2‐implant overdentures (IODs) in the edentulous mandible. Materials and methods Manual and electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL) searches were performed to identify scientific articles, published in English, reporting on mandibular IODs utilizing unsplinted attachments. Studies were included if they were prospective human studies reporting on two‐piece microrough surface implants with a diameter ≥3 mm. Data were extracted by two independent investigators, and an overall inter‐investigator kappa score was calculated. A meta‐analysis was performed on the included comparative studies. Results The search shortlisted 30 prospective studies for data extraction and statistical analysis. The included studies comprised of only two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1‐ vs. 2‐IODs, and a further 28 prospective studies. The kappa score calculated was between 0.86 and 1 for the various parameters. One RCT favored 1‐IODs (RD: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.14) while the other favored 2‐IODs (RD:−0.04, 95% CI: −0.27, 0.19). However, the overall random effects model did not reveal a significant risk difference (RD) for implant failure between the two interventions ( I 2 = 36.6%, P = 0.209; RD: 0.05, 95% CI: −0.07, 0.18). Conclusions The results of this meta‐analysis conclude that the postloading implant survival of 1‐IODs is not significantly different from 2‐IODs. However, the existing scientific evidence in the literature in terms of prospective comparative studies is scarce. Hence, before recommending the 1‐IOD as a treatment modality, long‐term observations are needed and a larger range of functional, prosthodontic, and patient‐centered outcome measures should be considered.