Abstract
Data sources Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
Study selection Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over trials on maxillary or mandibular implant overdentures with different attachment systems with at least one-year follow-up were considered. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.
Data extraction and synthesis Data were abstracted by four reviewers with risk of bias being assessed using the Cochrane tool. Data were combined using a fixed effects meta-analysis. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall body of evidence.
Results Six RCTs with a total of 294 mandibular overdentures were included. All of the trials were considered to be at high risk of bias. No studies on maxillary overdentures were included. For bar and ball attachments there was low quality evidence [two studies] that short-term re-treatment (repair of attachment system) was higher with ball attachments; RR =3.11(95%CI; 1.68 to 5.75) but no difference RR = 1.18(95%CI; 0.38 to 3.71) for replacements of attachment systems. There was no difference between ball and magnet systems in medium-term prosthodontic success or repair of attachment systems, but prosthodontic maintenance costs were higher when magnet attachments were used [one study - very low quality evidence]. Only one trial compared ball and telescopic attachments providing very low quality evidence.
Conclusions For mandibular overdentures, there is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient satisfaction, patient preference or costs. No trial evidence was available for maxillary overdentures.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Thomason JM. he McGill consensus statement on overdentures.Mandibular 2-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2002; 10: 95-96.
British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry. The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009; 17: 164-165.
Laverty DP, Green D, Marrison D, Addy L, Thomas MB. Implant retention systems for implant-retained overdentures. Br Dent J 2017; 222: 347-359.
Schünemann HJ, Brožek J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, editor(s). Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach (updated October 2013). GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available at gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html (accessed February 2019).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stafford, G. The effectiveness of different attachment systems maxillary and mandibular implant overdentures. Evid Based Dent 20, 26–27 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-019-0011-z
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-019-0011-z
