Impact of implant support for mandibular dentures on satisfaction, oral and general health-related quality of life: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine systematically the data published on the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures from the patient's perspective.
Material and methods: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and The Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database were searched and complemented by hand searching. All randomized-controlled trials published in English or French up to April 2007 were included, in which conventional dentures and mandibular implant overdentures in adult edentulous individuals were compared. The outcomes of interest were patient satisfaction, oral and general health-related quality of life. Random effects models were used to pool the effect sizes (ES) of all included studies.
Results: Ten publications of seven randomized-controlled trials were identified and eight were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with mandibular conventional dentures, implant overdentures were rated to be more satisfactory at a clinically relevant level [pooled ES 0.80, z =3.56, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.36–1.24, P =0.0004], but a statistical heterogeneity was found (χ²=31.63, df=5, P <0.00001, I ²=84%). The pooled ES for oral health quality of life was −0.41 ( z =1.31, 95% CI, −1.02 to 0.20; P =0.19, χ²=11.53, df=2, P <0.003, I ²=83%). There was a lack of evidence to show the impact of mandibular implant overdenture on perceived general health.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that, although mandibular implant-retained overdentures may be more satisfying for edentulous patients than new conventional dentures, the magnitude of the effect is still uncertain. There is a need for additional evidence including cost-effectiveness analyses on the impact of mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures.     

球帽和Locator附着体种植覆盖义齿的临床疗效评价

目的:评价球帽附着体和Locator附着体应用于种植覆盖义齿的临床效果.方法:纳入无牙颌患者67例,共植入150颗Straumann或Bego种植体,完成球帽式或Locator式种植覆盖义齿修复.定期随访复查,包括修复后生物并发症和机械并发症情况和患者满意度调查.采用SPSS 17.0软件统计分析.结果:完成随访58例,球帽组35例,Locator组26例,球帽改Locator组7例.生物并发症比较显示,球帽组的牙龈增生发生率明显高于Locator组(P＜0.05);球帽组和Locator组的机械并发症发生率无显著差异(P＞0.05),但Locator组各类机械并发症的发生次数少于球帽组,球帽组平均修理频次为1.9次,Locator组为0.9次;Locator组患者对咀嚼和固位的满意度高于球帽组,不同性别的患者满意度无差异,满意度与患者的年龄和随访时间无相关性.结论:Locator式种植覆盖义齿相比球帽式种植覆盖义齿,临床效果具有一定优势.     

Locator附着体和球帽附着体在种植覆盖义齿中的临床修复效果比较

目的探讨球帽基台和locator基台在种植体覆盖义齿(IODs)修复中临床效果的比较。方法选择单颌牙根嵴严重萎缩全口无牙颌患者27例,共计54枚种植体,其中球基台附着体26枚,locator基台附着体28枚。上部修复完成后6个月复诊并每年随访,从种植体、牙周黏膜、附着体等方面进行复查,统计其总的并发症发生率并对患者的满意度进行评价。结果两种基台支持式覆盖义齿患者的满意度明显高于普通全口义齿(P<0.05)。2年后两种附着体种植覆盖义齿边缘骨吸收率(BML)没有差别(P>0.05)。locator基台支持的覆盖义齿并发症的发生率仅为14.28%,球帽种植覆盖义齿总的并发症发生率为38.46%。结论 locator基台和球帽基台支持式全口义齿均优于常规全口义齿,locator基台产生的并发症更少。     

磁性附着体在下颌种植覆盖义齿的修复效果观察及患者满意度调查

目的:评价磁性附着体在下颌种植覆盖义齿修复中的临床效果及患者的满意度。方法 :选择2012-06—2013-07期间,选用种植体支持磁性附着体修复下颌牙列缺失的32例患者(32个磁性附着体,每位患者植入2~4枚种植体,共102枚种植体),随访观察12个月并对患者的满意度进行问卷调查。记录种植体的失败数量、失败类型,磁性附着体的失败数量、失败类型及各种并发症情况。结果:32例共32个磁性附着体、102枚种植体进行随访12个月。在随访病例中,2个磁性附着体(6.3%)出现基托正中折断,3个磁性基台出现松动(2.9%),6枚种植体(5.9%)存在种植体周围黏膜炎症。磁性附着体的存留率为87.5%,种植体的存留率为100%。患者对磁性附着体的舒适性和美观性满意度较高,言语功能和咀嚼功能次之,然后是固位能力。结论:种植体支持的磁性附着体,修复下颌牙列缺失的临床修复效果可靠,并可以获得良好的患者满意度。     

窄径植体下颌种植覆盖义齿的优化设计

目的：利用有限元法,分析不同种植体数目及附着体类型,对下颌窄径种植覆盖义齿颌骨内应力分布的影响。方法：采集患者下颌骨及其所佩戴覆盖义齿的CT数据,利用逆向工程技术构建包含下颌皮质骨、松质骨、附着体（杆卡附着体B;球帽附着体R;磁性附着体M）及覆盖义齿的完整下颌窄径种植覆盖义齿的三维有限元模型,通过对上述不同部件接触关系的定义,模拟右侧后牙垂直咬合作用下,不同植体数目及附着体类型对下颌窄径种植覆盖义齿颌骨内应力分布的影响。结果：偶数枚植体设计,植体周围应力峰值明显低于奇数枚植体设计;杆卡附着体植体周围应力峰值较低,球帽附着体其次,磁性附着体最高;杆卡附着体随着植体数目的增多,植体周围应力峰值降低;磁性附着体随着植体数目的增多,植体周围应力峰值反而增高。结论：植体数目和附着体类型对于颌骨内的应力分布均有显著影响;建议临床优先选用偶数枚植体的杆卡附着体设计;其次建议使用两植体球帽附着体设计。     

种植体支持球帽附着体固位下颌覆盖全口义齿的临床应用

目的:评价种植体支持球帽附着体固位的下颌覆盖全口义齿临床应用效果.方法:随机选择15例下颌无牙颌患者,每例植入2枚种植体,共植入30枚,随访观察1-12个月,从患者满意度、临床检查及种植体X线片观察修复效果.结果:种植体支持覆盖全口义齿修复下颌无牙颌,义齿固位和咀嚼功能满意率分别为100％和93.3％,义齿稳固,咀嚼功...     

无牙下颌种植全口覆盖义齿不同上部结构光弹模型的建立

目的:建立无牙颌光弹模型,为研究不同上部结构的种植全口覆盖义齿种植体周围支持组织的应力分布提供基础模型。方法:以光弹性环氧树脂模拟下颌骨,牙龈硅橡胶模拟牙槽黏膜。采用临床常用种植体、4种上部附着结构,按临床实际操作步骤制得双种植体支持的下颌全口覆盖义齿光弹模型。以正中全牙列加载为例测试光弹应力。结果:制得含种植体的环氧树脂光弹模型呈淡黄色,质地均匀,透明,无初应力,为应力测试提供了良好的实验基础。结论:该模型可用于定性分析种植体周围支持组织内的应力分布情况。