JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
| dc.contributor.author | Ahmed Elawady D.M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kaddah A.F. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Talaat khalifa M. | |
| dc.contributor.other | Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine | |
| dc.contributor.other | Department of Removable Prosthodontics | |
| dc.contributor.other | Cairo University | |
| dc.contributor.other | Egypt; Faculty of Dentistry | |
| dc.contributor.other | Department of Prosthodontics | |
| dc.contributor.other | Modern Science and Arts | |
| dc.contributor.other | University (MSA) | |
| dc.contributor.other | Egypt; Department of Removable Prosthodontics | |
| dc.contributor.other | Cairo University | |
| dc.contributor.other | Egypt; Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine | |
| dc.contributor.other | Department of Removable Prosthodontics | |
| dc.contributor.other | 6th October University | |
| dc.contributor.other | Egypt | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-01-09T20:41:18Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-01-09T20:41:18Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 15323382 | |
| dc.identifier.other | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.02.002 | |
| dc.identifier.other | PubMed ID : 28865818 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://t.ly/P55ye | |
| dc.description | Scopus | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background As a consensus, the 2-implant supported overdentures (ODs) are considered as the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible. In the same context, there is increased evidence supporting the use of single-implant OD. The aim of any design is to preserve the remaining structures and allow the longevity of the treatment. Objectives To evaluate the impact of single implant vs 2 implants on the peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and number of implant failures in mandibular implant overdentures. Methods A literature search of electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane) was performed up to March 2016 and complemented by hand search. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated MBL and number of implant failures relative to single-implant mandibular overdenture (MOD) were selected. The review and meta-analysis were performed using meta-analytic statistical package and in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Findings Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and qualitative synthesis. The observation period ranged from 12 months to 5 years in the selected RCTs. The comparison included in the meta-analysis is single- vs 2-implant MODs. Pooled data revealed that single-implant MODs significantly decreased the MBL (mean difference: 0.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.20-0.34, P <.0001, I2 = 0%) and number of implant failures (risk ratio: 3.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.18-8.97), P =.02; I2 = 0%). Conclusions Single-implant MOD was found to be better than 2-implant MOD in terms of MBL and number of implant failures. However, this result should be interpreted with caution due to limited number of analyzed studies with different loading protocols and short follow-up period. � 2017 Elsevier Inc. | en_US |
| dc.description.uri | https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=26150&tip=sid&clean=0 | |
| dc.language.iso | English | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Mosby Inc. | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice | |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | 17 | |
| dc.subject | Dental implant | en_US |
| dc.subject | Mandibular prosthesis | en_US |
| dc.subject | Overdenture | en_US |
| dc.subject | Single implant | en_US |
| dc.subject | Two implants | en_US |
| dc.subject | alveolar bone loss | en_US |
| dc.subject | human | en_US |
| dc.subject | implant-supported denture | en_US |
| dc.subject | mandible | en_US |
| dc.subject | meta analysis | en_US |
| dc.subject | overlay denture | en_US |
| dc.subject | tooth implant | en_US |
| dc.subject | tooth implantation | en_US |
| dc.subject | Alveolar Bone Loss | en_US |
| dc.subject | Dental Implantation, Endosseous | en_US |
| dc.subject | Dental Implants | en_US |
| dc.subject | Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported | en_US |
| dc.subject | Denture, Overlay | en_US |
| dc.subject | Humans | en_US |
| dc.subject | Mandible | en_US |
| dc.title | Single vs 2 Implants on Peri-implant Marginal Bone Level and Implant Failures in Mandibular Implant Overdentures: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis | en_US |
| dc.type | Review | en_US |
| dcterms.isReferencedBy | Doundoulakis, J.H., Eckert, S.E., Lindquist, C.C., Jeffcoat, M.K., The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture (2003) J�Am Dent Assoc, 134, pp. 1455-1458; Sadowsky, S.J., Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review (2001) J�Prosthet Dent, 86, pp. 468-473; Klemetti, E., Is there a certain number of implants needed to retain an overdenture? (2008) J�Oral Rehabil, 35, pp. 80-84; Gotfredsen, K., Carlsson, G., Jokstad, A., Scandinavian Society for Prosthetic Dentistry & Danish Society of Oral Implantology. Longevity of implants and? or teeth: consensus statements and recommendations (2008) J�Oral Rehabil, 35, pp. 2-8; Roccuzzo, M., Bonino, F., Gaudioso, L., Zwahlen, M., Meijer, H.J., What is the optimal number of implants for removable reconstructions? A systematic review on implant- supported overdentures (2012) Clinic Oral Implant Res, 23, pp. 229-237; Tavakolizadeh, S., Vafaee, F., Khoshhal, M., Ebrahimzadeh, Z., Comparison of marginal bone loss and patient satisfaction in single and double-implant assisted mandibular overdenture by immediate loading (2015) J�Adv Prosthodont, 7, pp. 191-198; Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009) Ann Intern Med, 151, pp. 264-269; Higgins, J.P., Altman, D.G., G�tzsche, P.C., The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011) BMJ, 343, p. d5928; Cordioli, G., Majzoub, Z., Castagna, S., Mandibular overdentures anchored to single implants: a five-year prospective study (1997) J�Prosthet Dent, 78, pp. 159-165; Liddelow, G., Henry, P., The immediately loaded single implant-retained mandibular overdenture: a 36-month prospective study (2010) Int J Prosthodont, 23, pp. 13-17; Gonda, T., Maeda, Y., Walton, J.N., MacEntee, M.I., Fracture incidence in mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants (2010) J�Prosthet Dent, 103, pp. 178-181; Harder, S., Wolfart, S., Egert, S., kern, M., Three-year clinical outcome of single implant retained mandibular overdenture: a five-year prospective study (2011) J�Dentistry, 39, pp. 656-661; Alsabeeha, N.H., Swain, M.V., Payne, A.G., Clinical performance and material properties of single-implant overdenture attachment systems (2011) Int J Prosthodont, 24, pp. 247-254; Cheng, T., Suna, G., Huoa, J., XiaojiHea, Wangb, Y., Patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures using the stud and magnetic attachments (2012) J�Dentistry, 40, pp. 1018-1023; Grover, M., Vaidyanathan, A.K., Veeravalli, P.T., OHRQoL, masticatory performance and crestal bone loss with single-implant, magnet-retained mandibular overdentures with conventional and shortened dental arch (2014) Clin Oral Impl Res, 25, pp. 580-586; Liu, J., Pan, S., Dong, J., Mo, Z., Fan, Y., Feng, H., Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behavior of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures (2013) J�Dentistry, 41, pp. 241-248; El-Sheikh, A.M., Shihabuddin, O.F., Ghoraba, S.M.F., Clinical study two versus three narrow-diameter implants with locator attachments supporting mandibular overdentures: a two-year prospective study (2012) Int J Dentistry, 2012, p. 285684; Uludag, B., Polat, S., Retention characteristics of different attachment systems of mandibular overdentures retained by two or three implants (2012) Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant, 27, pp. 1509-1513; Kronstrom, M., Davis, B., Loney, R., Gerrow, J., Hollender, L., A�prospective randomized study on the immediate loading of mandibular overdentures supported by one or two implants; a 3 Year follow-up report (2014) Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 16, pp. 323-332; Bryant, S., Walton, J., MacEntee, M., A�5-y randomized trial to compare 1 or 2 implants for implant overdentures (2014) J�Dent Res, 94, pp. 36-43; Talawy, D.B.E., Ali, S.M., A�two-year randomized clinical trial of one versus two implants retaining a mandibular overdenture with locator attachment (2015) EDJ, 61, pp. 3829-3838; Elawady, D.M., Kaddah, A., Omar, H., Naby, N.A., Impact of single versus two implants on the bone height loss and bone density for patients restored by implant-retained mandibular overdentures (2016) EDJ, 62, pp. 2849-2856; Kronstrom, M., Davis, B., Loney, R., Gerrow, J., Hollender, L., A�prospective randomized study on the immediate loading of mandibular overdentures supported by one or two implants: a 12-month follow-up report (2010) Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant, 25, pp. 181-188; Walton, J.N., Glick, N., Macentee, M.I., A�randomized clinical trial comparing patient satisfaction and prosthetic outcomes with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants (2009) Int J Prosthodont, 22, pp. 331-339; Albrektsson, T., Zarb, G., Worthington, P., Eriksson, A., The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success (1986) Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant, 1, pp. 11-25; Liu, J., Pan, S., Dong, J., Mo, Z., Fan, Y., Feng, H., Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis (2013) J�Dent, 41, pp. 241-249; Maeda, Y., Horisaka, M., Yagi, K., Biomechanical rationale for a single implant retained mandibular overdenture: an in�vitro study (2008) Clin Oral Implant Res, 19, pp. 271-275 | |
| dcterms.source | Scopus | |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.02.002 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | PubMed ID : 28865818 | |
| dc.Affiliation | October University for modern sciences and Arts (MSA) |
