We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Prosthodont 33 (2020), No. 2     9. Mar. 2020
Int J Prosthodont 33 (2020), No. 2  (09.03.2020)

Page 184-191, doi:10.11607/ijp.6636, PubMed:32069343


Bone Loss in the Posterior Edentulous Mandible with Implant-Supported Overdentures vs Complete Dentures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Oh, Won-suk / Saglik, Berna / Bak, Sun-Yung
Purpose: To analyze the current evidence on bone loss in the posterior edentulous mandible restored with complete dentures (CDs), two-implant–supported overdentures (2-IODs), or four-implant–supported overdentures (4-IODs).
Materials and Methods: A search was conducted in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases for clinical studies comparing bone loss in posterior edentulous mandibles restored with CDs, 2-IODs, or 4-IODs. A meta-analysis was performed using statistical software to estimate the mean differences in bone loss with 95% CI. The level of significance was set at P < .05.
Results: The search strategy identified 2,806 articles, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis included 7 two-arm studies comparing CDs vs 2-IODs or 2-IODs vs 4-IODs. No statistically significant difference was found in bone loss between 2-IODs and CDs (mean difference –0.25 [95% CI –0.85 to 0.36]; P = .43), whereas bone loss was significantly lower with 4-IODs than with 2-IODs (mean difference –0.96 [95% CI –1.86 to –0.06]; P = .04). Overall, the data were highly heterogenous (I2 > 74%).
Conclusion: 4-IODs can benefit the patient by decreasing bone loss in the posterior edentulous mandible. However, 2-IODs may not be superior to CDs in reducing bone loss in the posterior mandible. A validation of these results is needed through well-designed RCTs.