Do Clinical Outcomes Differ With Single Vs Two Implant- Supported Mandibular Overdentures? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Mingfu Ye, Wenjun Liu, Javier Calatrava, Hom-Lay Wang, Wen-Xia Huang
{"title":"Do Clinical Outcomes Differ With Single Vs Two Implant- Supported Mandibular Overdentures? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Mingfu Ye, Wenjun Liu, Javier Calatrava, Hom-Lay Wang, Wen-Xia Huang","doi":"10.11607/jomi.11358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is unclear if single implant vs. two implant-supported mandibular overdentures have similar clinical outcomes especially pertaining to implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL) and prosthetic complications. A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to examine this clinical query.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Main scientific databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched from inception until October 6th, 2024, for RCTs comparing single vs two implants for mandibular overdentures and reporting implant failures, MBL and prosthetic complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven RCTs were included. Meta-analysis showed a tendency of reduced implant failure rates with single implants at 1 year (OR: 0.33 95% CI: 0.10, 1.15 I2=0%) and 5 years (OR: 0.11 95% CI: 0.01, 2.16), but the results were not statistically significant. However, pooled subgroup analysis of studies with a follow-up period of 2-3 years indicated a significantly reduced implant failure rate with one single as compared to two implants (OR: 0.12 95% CI: 0.03, 0.54 I2=0%). No significant differences in implant failure rate were observed between the two groups based on implant loading protocols. Meta-analysis also showed that there were no significant differences in the risk of MBL between single and two implant groups (MD: -0.15 95% CI: -0.31, 0.01 I2=43%). Pooled analysis also showed that the risk of overdenture fracture, relining, and metal housing re-attachment did not differ significantly between single and two implant groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence from a limited number of RCTs, mainly with small sample sizes, indicates that single implant-supported mandibular overdentures may have a tendency of lower implant failures as compared to two implant-supported mandibular overdentures. The risk of MBL and prosthetic complications may not differ with either treatment modality.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It is unclear if single implant vs. two implant-supported mandibular overdentures have similar clinical outcomes especially pertaining to implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL) and prosthetic complications. A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to examine this clinical query.

Methods: Main scientific databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched from inception until October 6th, 2024, for RCTs comparing single vs two implants for mandibular overdentures and reporting implant failures, MBL and prosthetic complications.

Results: Eleven RCTs were included. Meta-analysis showed a tendency of reduced implant failure rates with single implants at 1 year (OR: 0.33 95% CI: 0.10, 1.15 I2=0%) and 5 years (OR: 0.11 95% CI: 0.01, 2.16), but the results were not statistically significant. However, pooled subgroup analysis of studies with a follow-up period of 2-3 years indicated a significantly reduced implant failure rate with one single as compared to two implants (OR: 0.12 95% CI: 0.03, 0.54 I2=0%). No significant differences in implant failure rate were observed between the two groups based on implant loading protocols. Meta-analysis also showed that there were no significant differences in the risk of MBL between single and two implant groups (MD: -0.15 95% CI: -0.31, 0.01 I2=43%). Pooled analysis also showed that the risk of overdenture fracture, relining, and metal housing re-attachment did not differ significantly between single and two implant groups.

Conclusions: Evidence from a limited number of RCTs, mainly with small sample sizes, indicates that single implant-supported mandibular overdentures may have a tendency of lower implant failures as compared to two implant-supported mandibular overdentures. The risk of MBL and prosthetic complications may not differ with either treatment modality.

单种植支撑下颌覆盖义齿与双种植支撑下颌覆盖义齿的临床效果不同吗?随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
背景:目前尚不清楚单种植体与双种植体下颌覆盖义齿是否具有相似的临床结果,特别是在种植体存活、边缘骨质流失(MBL)和义齿并发症方面。我们对随机对照试验(rct)进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以检验这一临床问题。方法:检索主要科学数据库(PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane Library),从研究开始到2024年10月6日,检索比较单种植体和双种植体用于下颌覆盖义齿的rct,并报告种植体失败、MBL和义体并发症。结果:纳入11项随机对照试验。荟萃分析显示,单颗种植体在1年(OR: 0.33 95% CI: 0.10, 1.15 I2=0%)和5年(OR: 0.11 95% CI: 0.01, 2.16)有降低种植体失败率的趋势,但结果无统计学意义。然而,随访2-3年的研究汇总亚组分析表明,与两个种植体相比,单个种植体的失败率显著降低(OR: 0.12 95% CI: 0.03, 0.54 I2=0%)。基于种植体加载方案,两组间种植体失败率无显著差异。meta分析还显示,单种植体组和两种植体组发生MBL的风险无显著差异(MD: -0.15 95% CI: -0.31, 0.01 I2=43%)。综合分析还显示,单种植组和双种植组的覆盖义齿骨折、复衬和金属外壳再附着的风险没有显著差异。结论:数量有限的rct(主要是小样本量)的证据表明,与双种植覆盖义齿相比,单种植覆盖义齿可能有更低的种植失败趋势。MBL和假体并发症的风险可能不会因两种治疗方式而不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信