Treatment effect of implant‐supported fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures on patient‐reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

ObjectivesTo analyze the effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant‐supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) or implant overdentures (IODs) on dental patient‐reported outcomes (dPROs).Materials and MethodsIn January 2022, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2023-09, Vol.34 (S26), p.177-195
Main Authors: Abou‐Ayash, Samir, Fonseca, Manrique, Pieralli, Stefano, Reissmann, Daniel R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Dental materials
Dental prosthetics
Dentures
Edentulous
Meta-analysis
Patients
Prostheses
Rehabilitation
Stability
Subgroups
Transplants & implants
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:ObjectivesTo analyze the effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant‐supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) or implant overdentures (IODs) on dental patient‐reported outcomes (dPROs).Materials and MethodsIn January 2022, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened for prospective clinical studies on completely edentulous patients treated with IFCDs and/or IODs, reporting pre‐treatment and follow‐up dPROs. Hedges' g effect sizes (ES) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Afterward, meta‐analyses were conducted using random effect models.ResultsA total number of 1608 records was initially identified. Of those, 28 studies reporting dPROs from 1457 patients were finally included. The applied dental patient‐reported outcome measures (dPROMs) included several versions of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) or specific items assessing satisfaction with Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). The overall ES was large for rehabilitation with IFCDs (1.68 [CI: 1.15, 2.20]) and IODs (1.26 [CI: 0.99, 1.52]) with no significant difference (p = .165) between the two. Denture stability was the only factor rated significantly higher for IFCDs (ES difference: 2.37 [CI: 0.21, 4.54]; p = .032). Subgroup analyses revealed moderately higher ES for IODs on two implants relative to one implant (ES difference: 0.73 [CI: 0.34, 1.12]; p 
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.14065