Liebe Leserinnen und Leser,
unsere Online-Journals ziehen um. Die neuen (und alten) Ausgaben aller Zeitschriften finden Sie unter
In den meisten Fällen können Sie sich dort mit Ihrer E-Mail-Adresse und Ihrem bisherigen Passwort direkt einloggen. Ansonsten bitten wir Sie, sich erneut zu registrieren. Vielen Dank.
Ihr Quintessenz Verlag
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 10 (2017), Nr. 3 22. Sep. 2017
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 10 (2017), Nr. 3 (22.09.2017)
Seite 243-261, PubMed:28944354, Sprache: Englisch
Single vs two implant-retained overdentures for edentulous mandibles: a systematic review
Alqutaibi, Ahmed Yaseen / Esposito, Marco / Algabri, Radwan / Alfahad, Adnan / Kaddah, Amal / Farouk, Mohammed / Alsourori, Ali
Purpose: To compare prosthesis and implant failure, patient satisfaction, prosthetic complications and peri-implant marginal bone loss of mandibular overdentures (IOD) supported by a single or two implants.
Materials and methods: Manual and electronic database (PubMed and Cochrane) searches were performed to identify randomised controlled trials, without language restriction, comparing single vs two implant supported mandibular overdentures. Two investigators extracted data independently. The Cochrane tool was used for assessing the quality of included studies. Meta-analyses were performed for the included RCTs.
Results: Six publications corresponding to four RCTs were identified. Three RCTs (corresponding to five publications) were included and one trial was excluded. Follow-ups in function were 1, 3 and 5 years after loading. All included studies were considered to be at a high risk of bias. The pooled result revealed more prosthesis failures at overdentures supported by two implants at 1 year (three trials) (P = 0.02; Risk Difference: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.22, -0.02), however, there were non-significant differences at 3 years (two trials) (P = 0.22; Risk Difference: -0.32, 95% CI: -0.83, 0.19) and at 5 years (one trial) (P = 0.95; Risk Difference: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.22, 0.24). Regarding implant failures, there were more implant losses in overdentures supported by two implants at 1 year (three trials) (P = 0.02; Risk Difference: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.22, -0.02) and at 5 years (one trial) (P = 0.95; Risk Difference: -0.15, 95% CI: -0.28, -0.02), however, there were non-significant difference at 3 years (two trials) (P = 0.2; Risk Difference: -0.33, 95% CI: -0.84, 0.18). After 5 years in function, meta-analyses revealed that there were non-significant differences regarding overall prosthetic complications when mandibular overdentures supported by a single implant were compared with overdentures supported by two implants (P = 0.43; RD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.15).
Conclusion: Mandibular overdentures retained by a single implant have comparable results to those retained by two implants. However, this should be interpreted with caution as all the included studies were considered at a high risk of bias.
Conflict of interest statement: None declared.
Schlagwörter: dental implants, implant failure, meta-analyses, patient satisfaction, overdentures, single implant overdenture, systematic review