Hard and soft-tissue evaluation of bar-clip, ball-socket, and kerator attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: An in vivo study

Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical performance of implant-retained mandibular overdentures with stud and ball attachments: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Evidence regarding the retention system for a mandibular overdenture is important for treatment planning. However, the clinical performance of stud and ball attachments for mandibular overdenture retainers is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical performance and self-reported patient outcomes of ball and stud attachments as mandibular overdenture retainers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized (N-RCTs) controlled clinical trials were selected based on the eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration Tools, and the certainty of the evidence (COE) by using the grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) workshop approach. Meta-analyses according to the follow-up period were performed for implant survival, prosthetic maintenance and complications, bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs and 4 N-RCTs were included. Twelve studies presented a high risk of bias. The stud demonstrated a lower risk ratio (RR) (P<.001) for maintenance and complications concerning the need for matrix activation (RR 7.12 [2.65, 19.15]) (very low COE) and new overdentures (RR 2.47 [1.02, 5.96]) (moderate COE), ranging from 1 to 5 years of follow-up. Mean difference (MD) for MBL after 1 (MD 0.40 [0.28, 0.52]; P<.001) and 5 years (MD 0.18 [0.16, 0.20]; P<.001) was higher for ball attachments than that for stud (very low COE) attachments. Stud attachments also improved satisfaction (P<.001) when compared with ball attachments (very low COE). Implant survival rate (high COE), BoP (very low COE), and OHRQoL (low COE) were similar for the attachments.

CONCLUSIONS

Stud and ball attachments are clinically appropriate options as mandibular overdenture retainers and are capable of restoring OHRQoL. Nevertheless, the stud showed greater improvement in satisfaction and less prosthetic aftercare and MBL.

Crestal Bone Changes and Patient Satisfaction with Single Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures with Dalla Bona and Locator Attachments with Immediate Loading Protocols. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

PURPOSE

There is no enough evidence present on the success of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures (SIMO) with Dalla Bona and Locator attachments. This study aims to compare crestal bone loss and patient satisfaction with SIMO with Dalla Bona and Locator attachment following immediate loading protocols.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve patients included in Group 1 received immediate SIMO with Dalla Bona attachments, and another twelve patients in Group 2 received immediate SIMO with Locator attachments in the mid symphyseal region. The follow-up was scheduled at 6 and 12 months after implant placement. The patient satisfaction with the denture was evaluated with the visual analog scale (VAS) score. The data obtained were statistically analyzed with the independent student t-test for intergroup comparison and repeated measures of ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's Post hoc analysis for intragroup comparison of mean crestal bone loss at a different time interval.

RESULTS

Ten patients each in both the groups were available for follow-up. Crestal bone loss at 6 months follow-up for Dalla Bona group was 0.42 ± 0.10 mm on the mesial side and 0.43 ± 0.14 mm on the distal side and at 1 year 1.54 ± 0.16 mm on the mesial side and 1.66 ± 0.13 mm on the distal side. The mean crestal bone loss at 6 months follow-up for Locator group was 0.48 ± 0.16 mm on the mesial side and 0.45 ± 0.11 mm on the distal side and at 1 year was 1.71 ± 0.22 mm on mesial side and 1.74 ± 0.28 mm on the distal side. There was difference in bone loss at 6 months (mesial: 0.06 mm, p = 0.327; distal:0.02 mm; p = 0.726) and at 1 year (mesial: 0.17 mm, p = 0.063; distal: 0.08 mm; p = 0.423) in between two groups but the difference was statistically insignificant. There was a significant difference found in the VAS score for patient satisfaction with SIMO with Dalla Bona attachments and Locator attachments at 6 months (54.2 vs. 51.8, p = 0.005) and 1 year (60.6 vs. 55.2, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction with SIMO with Dalla Bona attachments was higher during the follow-up. SIMO with Dalla Bona attachments had less crestal bone loss and less prosthetic complications when compared to Locator attachments, although the difference in the bone loss was statistically insignificant.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

AIM

To evaluate the survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction of different attachments used in implant overdenture.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic search of peer-review articles published between 2001 and 2019 assessing the attachments used for implant-supported overdentures was done according to PRISMA Guidelies. The review evaluated sixteen articles related to survival of the attachments, the reaction of the soft and hard tissues along with repair and maintenance of the attachments, and overall performance of the overdenture attachments.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

There is statistically significant heterogeneity (Q =374.7403, df = 15, and P < 0.0001). The statistics of fixed-effect model reported an MD of - 0.0880 (95% CI = -0.1536; 0.0225).

RESULT

The review evaluated the 16 articles that met with the inclusion and search criteria. The studies were the combination of bar and ball attachments and their subtypes, magnetic and bar attachments, and locator in combination with other attachments. The meta-analysis of combined 16 studies reported acceptable heterogeneity among 16 studies (I 2 = 96%) and reported to be statistically significant (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The survival rate of attachments was in the range of 95.8%-97.5% for bar, 96.2%-100% for ball, 90%-92% for magnet and locator attachments were in the range of 97% after a mean follow-up period of 3 years. The bar attachments reported moderate tissue reaction in the form of mucosal changes, gingival inflammation, and bone resorption. The locator attachments require higher maintenance and repair. The magnetic attachments produce higher bone resorption and readily displace under functional force. Patient satisfaction and compliance was higher for ball, locator, and bar attachments as well as low for magnetic attachment. Thus, the ball and locator attachments excellently perform in terms of survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction.