A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures
1
4 Volume 105 Issue 1 The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Wat et al REFERENCES 1. Pjetursson BE, Lang NP. Prosthetic treat- ment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35 Suppl 1:72-9. 2. Pikner SS, Gröndahl K, Jemt T, Friberg B. Marginal bone loss at implants: a retro- spective, long-term follow-up of turned Branemark System implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:11-23. 3. Cehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kökat AM, Akça K, Eckert S. A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or sup- porting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:266-77. 4. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Brägger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:667-76. 5. Nedir R, Bischof M, Szmukler-Moncler S, Belser UC, Samson J. Prosthetic complica- tions with dental implants: from an up-to- 8-year experience in private practice. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:919-28. 6. Albrektsson T. On long-term maintenance of the osseointegrated response. Aust Prosthodont J 1993;7 Suppl:15-24. 7. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25. 8. Parfitt GJ. Measurement of the physiologi- cal mobility of individual teeth in an axial direction. J Dent Res 1960;39:608-18. 9. Muehlemann HR, Savdir S, Rateitschak KH. Tooth mobility-- its causes and significance. J Periodontol 1965;36:148-53. 10.Sekine H, Komiyama Y, Hotta H, Yoshida K. Mobility characteristics and tactile sensitiv- ity of osseointegrated fixture-supporting systems. In: van Steenberghe D, editor. Tis- sue integration in oral maxillofacial recon- struction. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica; 1986. p. 326-32. 11.Richter EJ. Basic biomechanics of dental implants in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:602-9. 12.Fischer K, Bäckström M, Sennerby L. Immediate and early loading of oxidized tapered implants in the partially edentu- lous maxilla: a 1-year prospective clinical, radiographic, and resonance frequency analysis study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:69-80. Corresponding author: Dr Edmond H. N. Pow University of Hong Kong 34 Hospital Road Hong Kong CHINA Fax: +852 2858 6114 E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2010 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures Çehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kökat AM, Akca K, Eckert S. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:266-77. Purpose. To evaluate, through a systematic review of the literature, the effects of implant design and attachment type on marginal bone loss in implant-retained/supported overdentures. Materials and Methods. With the combined search terms “implant and overdenture,” “implant-supported overden- ture,” “implant-retained overdenture,” and “implant-anchored overdenture,” along with specific inclusion and exclu- sion 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. Marginal bone loss values with regard to time, attachment type, and implant system used were compared by Kruskal-Wallis tests. Means and standard deviations of data were combined using fixed- and random-effect models and evaluated using meta-analysis. Results. Forty-six articles were included in the analyses; data extraction and meta-analysis were able to be conducted on eight studies. Data regarding maxillary overdentures could not be analyzed statistically. Bone loss around man- dibular implants did not seem to be influenced by implant system or attachment design (bar, ball, magnet, and other types) in the first year, from 1 to ≤ 5 years, and even after 5 years (P > .05). Meta-analysis could not detect differences in implant systems or attachment types (P > .05). Conclusions. Based upon a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature that identified a total of 4,200 im- plants from 13 manufacturers, there was no difference in marginal bone loss around implants retaining/supporting mandibular overdentures relative to implant type or attachment designs. Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
-
date post
14-Sep-2016 -
Category
Documents
-
view
239 -
download
2
Transcript of A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures
4 Volume 105 Issue 1
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Wat et al
REFERENCES
1. Pjetursson BE, Lang NP. Prosthetic treat-ment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35 Suppl 1:72-9.
2. Pikner SS, Gröndahl K, Jemt T, Friberg B. Marginal bone loss at implants: a retro-spective, long-term follow-up of turned Branemark System implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:11-23.
3. Cehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kökat AM, Akça K, Eckert S. A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or sup-porting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:266-77.
4. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Brägger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:667-76.
5. Nedir R, Bischof M, Szmukler-Moncler S, Belser UC, Samson J. Prosthetic complica-tions with dental implants: from an up-to-8-year experience in private practice. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:919-28.
6. Albrektsson T. On long-term maintenance of the osseointegrated response. Aust Prosthodont J 1993;7 Suppl:15-24.
7. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.
8. Parfitt GJ. Measurement of the physiologi-cal mobility of individual teeth in an axial direction. J Dent Res 1960;39:608-18.
9. Muehlemann HR, Savdir S, Rateitschak KH. Tooth mobility-- its causes and significance. J Periodontol 1965;36:148-53.
10.Sekine H, Komiyama Y, Hotta H, Yoshida K. Mobility characteristics and tactile sensitiv-ity of osseointegrated fixture-supporting systems. In: van Steenberghe D, editor. Tis-sue integration in oral maxillofacial recon-struction. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica; 1986. p. 326-32.
11.Richter EJ. Basic biomechanics of dental implants in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:602-9.
12.Fischer K, Bäckström M, Sennerby L. Immediate and early loading of oxidized tapered implants in the partially edentu-lous maxilla: a 1-year prospective clinical, radiographic, and resonance frequency analysis study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:69-80.
Corresponding author:Dr Edmond H. N. PowUniversity of Hong Kong34 Hospital Road Hong KongCHINAFax: +852 2858 6114E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2010 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature
A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures
Çehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kökat AM, Akca K, Eckert S.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:266-77.
Purpose. To evaluate, through a systematic review of the literature, the effects of implant design and attachment type on marginal bone loss in implant-retained/supported overdentures.
Materials and Methods. With the combined search terms “implant and overdenture,” “implant-supported overden-ture,” “implant-retained overdenture,” and “implant-anchored overdenture,” along with specific inclusion and exclu-sion 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. Marginal bone loss values with regard to time, attachment type, and implant system used were compared by Kruskal-Wallis tests. Means and standard deviations of data were combined using fixed- and random-effect models and evaluated using meta-analysis.
Results. Forty-six articles were included in the analyses; data extraction and meta-analysis were able to be conducted on eight studies. Data regarding maxillary overdentures could not be analyzed statistically. Bone loss around man-dibular implants did not seem to be influenced by implant system or attachment design (bar, ball, magnet, and other types) in the first year, from 1 to ≤ 5 years, and even after 5 years (P > .05). Meta-analysis could not detect differences in implant systems or attachment types (P > .05).
Conclusions. Based upon a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature that identified a total of 4,200 im-plants from 13 manufacturers, there was no difference in marginal bone loss around implants retaining/supporting mandibular overdentures relative to implant type or attachment designs.
Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
