Export Ready — 

Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido [UNESP]
Publication Date: 2017
Other Authors: Verri, Fellippo Ramos [UNESP], Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo de [UNESP], Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira, Mello, Caroline Cantieri [UNESP], Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
Format: Other
Language: eng
Source: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Download full: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.009
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/162499
Summary: Objective: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the use of mini implants to retain complete overdentures in terms of survival rates of mini implants, marginal bone loss, satisfaction, and quality of life. Data: This report followed the PRISMA Statement and PICO question. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42016036141. Source: Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of studies published until September 2016 and listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases. The focused question was: is the use of mini implants feasible for prosthodontic rehabilitation with complete overdentures? Results: The 24 studies selected for review evaluated 1273 patients whose mean age was 65.93 years; these patients had received 2494 mini implants and 386 standard implants for retaining overdenture prosthesis. The mean follow-up time was 2.48 years (range: 1-7 years). There was a higher survival rate of mini implants (92.32%). More frequent failures for maxillary (31.71%) compared with mandibular arches (4.89%). The majority of studies revealed marginal bone loss values similar to those of standard implants (< 1.5 mm). All studies verified an increase in satisfaction and quality of life after rehabilitation treatment with mini dental implants. Conclusion: The present systematic review indicates that the use of mini implants for retaining overdenture prosthesis is considered an alternative treatment when standard treatment is not possible, since it presents high survival rates, acceptable marginal bone loss, and improvements in variables related to satisfaction and quality of life. Clinical significance: Based on the results of this study, the use of a minimum 4 and 6 mini implants can be considered a satisfactory treatment option for rehabilitation of the mandibular and maxillary arches respectively with a complete overdenture. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
id UNSP_adb4d954c74ed850f7c0665035256178
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/162499
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic reviewOverdenturesEdentulous mouthMini implantsMarginal bone lossQuality of lifeSystematic reviewObjective: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the use of mini implants to retain complete overdentures in terms of survival rates of mini implants, marginal bone loss, satisfaction, and quality of life. Data: This report followed the PRISMA Statement and PICO question. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42016036141. Source: Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of studies published until September 2016 and listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases. The focused question was: is the use of mini implants feasible for prosthodontic rehabilitation with complete overdentures? Results: The 24 studies selected for review evaluated 1273 patients whose mean age was 65.93 years; these patients had received 2494 mini implants and 386 standard implants for retaining overdenture prosthesis. The mean follow-up time was 2.48 years (range: 1-7 years). There was a higher survival rate of mini implants (92.32%). More frequent failures for maxillary (31.71%) compared with mandibular arches (4.89%). The majority of studies revealed marginal bone loss values similar to those of standard implants (< 1.5 mm). All studies verified an increase in satisfaction and quality of life after rehabilitation treatment with mini dental implants. Conclusion: The present systematic review indicates that the use of mini implants for retaining overdenture prosthesis is considered an alternative treatment when standard treatment is not possible, since it presents high survival rates, acceptable marginal bone loss, and improvements in variables related to satisfaction and quality of life. Clinical significance: Based on the results of this study, the use of a minimum 4 and 6 mini implants can be considered a satisfactory treatment option for rehabilitation of the mandibular and maxillary arches respectively with a complete overdenture. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.UNESP Univ Estadual Paulista, Aracatuba Dent Sch, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Aracatuba, BrazilUniv Sacred Heart USC, Dept Hlth Sci, Bauru, BrazilUNESP Univ Estadual Paulista, Aracatuba Dent Sch, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Aracatuba, BrazilElsevier B.V.Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Univ Sacred Heart USCAraujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido [UNESP]Verri, Fellippo Ramos [UNESP]Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo de [UNESP]Santiago Junior, Joel FerreiraMello, Caroline Cantieri [UNESP]Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]2018-11-26T17:18:34Z2018-11-26T17:18:34Z2017-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/other4-13application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.009Journal Of Dentistry. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 57, p. 4-13, 2017.0300-5712http://hdl.handle.net/11449/16249910.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.009WOS:000394398500002WOS000394398500002.pdfWeb of Sciencereponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengJournal Of Dentistry1,919info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2025-03-14T05:02:45Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/162499Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462025-03-14T05:02:45Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review
title Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review
spellingShingle Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review
Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido [UNESP]
Overdentures
Edentulous mouth
Mini implants
Marginal bone loss
Quality of life
Systematic review
title_short Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review
title_full Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review
title_fullStr Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review
title_sort Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review
author Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido [UNESP]
author_facet Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido [UNESP]
Verri, Fellippo Ramos [UNESP]
Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo de [UNESP]
Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira
Mello, Caroline Cantieri [UNESP]
Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Verri, Fellippo Ramos [UNESP]
Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo de [UNESP]
Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira
Mello, Caroline Cantieri [UNESP]
Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Univ Sacred Heart USC
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido [UNESP]
Verri, Fellippo Ramos [UNESP]
Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo de [UNESP]
Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira
Mello, Caroline Cantieri [UNESP]
Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Overdentures
Edentulous mouth
Mini implants
Marginal bone loss
Quality of life
Systematic review
topic Overdentures
Edentulous mouth
Mini implants
Marginal bone loss
Quality of life
Systematic review
description Objective: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the use of mini implants to retain complete overdentures in terms of survival rates of mini implants, marginal bone loss, satisfaction, and quality of life. Data: This report followed the PRISMA Statement and PICO question. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42016036141. Source: Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of studies published until September 2016 and listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases. The focused question was: is the use of mini implants feasible for prosthodontic rehabilitation with complete overdentures? Results: The 24 studies selected for review evaluated 1273 patients whose mean age was 65.93 years; these patients had received 2494 mini implants and 386 standard implants for retaining overdenture prosthesis. The mean follow-up time was 2.48 years (range: 1-7 years). There was a higher survival rate of mini implants (92.32%). More frequent failures for maxillary (31.71%) compared with mandibular arches (4.89%). The majority of studies revealed marginal bone loss values similar to those of standard implants (< 1.5 mm). All studies verified an increase in satisfaction and quality of life after rehabilitation treatment with mini dental implants. Conclusion: The present systematic review indicates that the use of mini implants for retaining overdenture prosthesis is considered an alternative treatment when standard treatment is not possible, since it presents high survival rates, acceptable marginal bone loss, and improvements in variables related to satisfaction and quality of life. Clinical significance: Based on the results of this study, the use of a minimum 4 and 6 mini implants can be considered a satisfactory treatment option for rehabilitation of the mandibular and maxillary arches respectively with a complete overdenture. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-02-01
2018-11-26T17:18:34Z
2018-11-26T17:18:34Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/other
format other
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.009
Journal Of Dentistry. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 57, p. 4-13, 2017.
0300-5712
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/162499
10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.009
WOS:000394398500002
WOS000394398500002.pdf
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.009
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/162499
identifier_str_mv Journal Of Dentistry. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 57, p. 4-13, 2017.
0300-5712
10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.009
WOS:000394398500002
WOS000394398500002.pdf
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal Of Dentistry
1,919
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 4-13
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier B.V.
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier B.V.
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Web of Science
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repositoriounesp@unesp.br
_version_ 1834484815677620224