J Adv Prosthodont.  2012 Nov;4(4):197-203. 10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.197.

Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review

• Kim HY
• Lee JY
• Shin SW
• Bryant SR

• KMID: 2176418
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.197

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review was to address treatment outcome according to attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures in terms of implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance and complications, and patient satisfaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and hand searching of relevant journals considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Clinical trial studies on mandibular implant overdentures until August, 2010 were selected if more than one type of overdenture attachment was reported. Twenty four studies from 1098 studies were finally included and the data on implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance and complications, patient satisfaction were analyzed relative to attachment systems.
RESULTS
Four studies presented implant survival rates (95.8 - 97.5% for bar, 96.2 - 100% for ball, 91.7% for magnet) according to attachment system. Ten other studies presented an implant survival rate ranging from 93.3% to 100% without respect to the attachment groups. Common prosthetic maintenance and complications were replacement of an assay for magnet attachments, and activation of a matrix or clip for ball or bar attachments. Prosthetic maintenance and complications most commonly occurred in the magnet groups. Conflicting findings were found on the rate of prosthetic maintenance and complications comparing ball and bar attachments. Most studies showed no significant differences in patient satisfaction depending upon attachment systems.
CONCLUSION
The implant survival rate of mandibular overdentures seemed to be high regardless attachment systems. The prosthetic maintenance and complications may be influenced by attachment systems. However patient satisfaction may be independent of the attachment system.

Keyword

Denture; Overlay; Mandibular prosthesis; Dental implants; Outcome assessment; Patient satisfaction

MeSH Terms

Dental Implants
Denture, Overlay
Dentures
Hand
Humans
Magnets
Mandibular Prosthesis
Patient Satisfaction
Survival Rate
Treatment Outcome
Dental Implants

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Flowchart of search strategy.

Reference

1. van Waas MA. The influence of clinical variables on patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 63:307–310.

2. Awad MA, Feine JS. Measuring patient satisfaction with mandibular prostheses. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998. 26:400–405.

3. Carlsson GE. Clinical morbidity and sequelae of treatment with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 79:17–23.

4. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais J, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002. 17:601–602.

5. 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.

6. Ma S, Tawse-Smith A, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Marginal bone loss with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different loading protocols and attachment systems: 10-year outcomes. Int J Prosthodont. 2010. 23:321–332.

7. Andreiotelli M, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthodontic complications with implant overdentures: a systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont. 2010. 23:195–203.

8. Assunção WG, Barão VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology. 2010. 27:154–162.

9. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent. 2006. 15:24–34.

10. Needleman IG. A guide to systematic reviews. J Clin Periodontol. 2002. 29:6–9.

11. Davis DM, Packer ME. Mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech implants with either ball attachments or magnets: 5-year results. Int J Prosthodont. 1999. 12:222–229.

12. Davis DM, Packer ME. The maintenance requirements of mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech implants using three different attachment mechanisms-balls, magnets, and bars; 3-year results. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2000. 8:131–134.

13. Davis DM, Rogers JO, Packer ME. The extent of maintenance required by implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 3-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996. 11:767–774.

14. Wismeijer D, van Waas MA, Mulder J, Vermeeren JI, Kalk W. Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with three treatment modalities for overdentures on implants of the ITI Dental Implant System. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999. 10:297–306.

15. Davis DM. Implant supported overdentures-the King's experience. J Dent. 1997. 25:Suppl 1. S33–S37.

16. Mericske-Stern R, Steinlin Schaffner T, Marti P, Geering AH. Peri-implant mucosal aspects of ITI implants supporting overdentures. A five-year longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994. 5:9–18.

17. Naert I, Quirynen M, Hooghe M, van Steenberghe D. A comparative prospective study of splinted and unsplinted Brånemark implants in mandibular overdenture therapy: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Dent. 1994. 71:486–492.

18. Gotfredsen K. Implant supported overdentures-the Copenhagen experience. J Dent. 1997. 25:Suppl 1. S39–S42.

19. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A 5-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998. 9:170–177.

20. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil. 1999. 26:195–202.

21. Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont. 2000. 13:125–130.

22. Walton JN. A randomized clinical trial comparing two mandibular implant overdenture designs: 3-year prosthetic outcomes using a six-field protocol. Int J Prosthodont. 2003. 16:255–260.

23. Naert I, Alsaadi G, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. A 10-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures: peri-implant outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004. 19:695–702.

24. Kleis WK, Kämmerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010. 12:209–218.

25. Stoker GT, Wismeijer D, van Waas MA. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of aftercare and cost-analysis with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res. 2007. 86:276–280.

26. Walton JN, MacEntee MI, Glick N. One-year prosthetic outcomes with implant overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002. 17:391–398.

27. MacEntee MI, Walton JN, Glick N. A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: three-year results. J Prosthet Dent. 2005. 93:28–37.

28. Payne AG, Solomons YF. Mandibular implant-supported overdentures: a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3 different attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2000. 13:246–253.

29. Cune M, Burgers M, van Kampen F, de Putter C, van der Bilt A. Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments. Int J Prosthodont. 2010. 23:310–317.

30. Wismeijer D, van Waas MA, Vermeeren JI, Mulder J, Kalk W. Patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures. A comparison of three treatment strategies with ITI-dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997. 26:263–267.

31. Timmerman R, Stoker GT, Wismeijer D, Oosterveld P, Vermeeren JI, van Waas MA. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of participant satisfaction with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res. 2004. 83:630–633.

32. Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 2004. 17:401–410.

33. Gallucci GO, Morton D, Weber HP. Loading protocols for dental implants in edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009. 24:132–146.

34. Riley MA, Williams AJ, Speight JD, Walmsley AD, Harris IR. Investigations into the failure of dental magnets. Int J Prosthodont. 1999. 12:249–254.

35. Saygili G, Sahmali S. Retentive forces of two magnetic systems compared with two precision attachments. J Oral Sci. 1998. 40:61–64.

36. Riley MA, Walmsley AD, Harris IR. Magnets in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 2001. 86:137–142.

37. Ceruti P, Bryant SR, Lee JH, MacEntee MI. Magnet-retained implant-supported overdentures: review and 1-year clinical report. J Can Dent Assoc. 2010. 76:a52.

38. Watson GK, Payne AG, Purton DG, Thomson WM. Mandibular overdentures: comparative evaluation of prosthodontic maintenance of three different implant systems during the first year of service. Int J Prosthodont. 2002. 15:259–266.

39. Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Mandibular two-implant overdentures: prosthodontic maintenance using different loading protocols and attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2011. 24:405–416.

40. Walton JN, Huizinga SC, Peck CC. Implant angulation: a measurement technique, implant overdenture maintenance, and the influence of surgical experience. Int J Prosthodont. 2001. 14:523–530.

41. Assad AS, Abd El-Dayem MA, Badawy MM. Comparison between mainly mucosa-supported and combined mucosa-implant-supported mandibular overdentures. Implant Dent. 2004. 13:386–394.

42. Abd El-Dayem MA, Assad AS, Eldin Sanad ME, Mahmoud Mogahed SA. Comparison of prefabricated and custom-made bars used for implant-retained mandibular complete overdentures. Implant Dent. 2009. 18:501–511.