Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Publication Date: | 2017 |
| Other Authors: | , , , , |
| 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 |