PurposeMetal removable partial dentures (RPDs) are often considered long‐term treatment options for partially edentulous patients, while acrylic resin RPDs are considered interim treatments. The aim of this review was to compare metal and acrylic resin RPDs regarding patient‐reported outcomes for partially edentulous individuals.Materials and MethodsFour databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science) were systematically searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing patient‐reported outcomes between metal and acrylic resin RPDs. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool (ROBINS‐I) and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. The level of evidence was evaluated using Oxford Center for Evidence‐based Medicine tool. A random‐effects model was used to analyze the data.ResultsA total of 15 studies were included in the systematic review; 10 in the meta‐analysis. The pooled effect size for patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life showed no statistical significant difference between metal and acrylic resin dentures (0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.01, 0.45, p = 0.06; 1.45, 95% confidence interval –2.43, 5.33, p = 0.46, respectively). Compliance with using RPDs was significantly higher in patients with metal compared to patients with acrylic resin dentures (pooled odds ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.45, 0.73, p < 0.001). Most studies had critical to serious risk of bias and low level of evidence.ConclusionsThe reviewed studies showed that there was no significant difference between metal and acrylic resin RPDs in patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life. Metal dentures were associated with higher patient compliance rates and were preferred more by patients compared to acrylic resin dentures. However, the reviewed studies had low levels of evidence and therefore, high‐quality randomized controlled trials are needed to conclusively address the question of this review.

Periodontal and peri-implant soft and hard tissue in diabetic patients have always been a topic of interest for researchers and clinicians alike. Among which, a subtopic that has attracted more attention is the beneficial effect of metformin (MF) on periodontal and peri-implant soft and hard tissue. This review aimed to assess the impact of MF on the periodontal and peri-implant soft- and hard-tissue healing among diabetic patients. Research was conducted using the keywords ‘metformin’, ‘diabetes’, ‘periodontitis’, ‘implant’, and ‘peri-implantitis’ via the Medline (PubMed) and Google Scholar databases. Selected articles were reviewed. A total of 21 articles, discussing the impact on periodontal health (six animal studies, seven clinical studies, and three systematic reviews) and five studies on peri-implant health (four animal studies and one clinical study) were included. All have reported a positive impact of MF on decreasing the inflammatory response, oxidative stress, and ultimate bone loss. Similarly, human studies reported a positive effect of MF on clinical and radiographic parameters compared with controls. Despite systematic reviews reporting heterogeneity among the included studies, MF has shown a positive impact on periodontal health. In animal, clinical studies, and systematic reviews, MF showed a protective impact on periodontal and peri-implant health.

Objectives To examine the impact of adding a third midline implant with stud attachment to a mandibular two‐implant overdenture on patient‐oriented outcomes. Methods In this pre–post design clinical trial, following the standard procedures, mandibular two‐implant overdentures of 17 edentulous individuals (61.9 ± 6.6 years) were converted to three‐implant overdentures by adding a stud attachment to an unloaded midline implant. Patient‐oriented outcomes included patient expectations and satisfaction with implant overdenture as well as willingness to pay the cost of conversion. Data were collected at baseline and at the 6‐week follow‐up using visual analog and binary scales as well as open‐ended questions. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation, Fisher exact test, Mann–Whitney U test, and the exact sign test. Results After connecting the third midline implant to the mandibular two‐implant overdenture, there was a statistically significant decrease in the anteroposterior movement (p = 0.005) as evaluated by clinicians. Moreover, study participants reported an increase in perceived stability of the overdenture (95% CI; 0.68–1.00, p = 0.002) and in their ability to speak (95% CI; 0.63–1.00, p = 0.008). The addition of a third implant met the expectations of 94% of patients in regard to lower denture stability, 100% for retention, and 82.4% for comfort. The mandibular three‐implant overdenture increased patient general satisfaction over a short period of time, but this improvement was not statistically significant. About 80% of patients would recommend this type of prosthesis to their peers but only 47% of them would agree to pay a large increase in the cost of treatment compared to a two‐implant overdenture. Conclusions The addition of a midline third implant to an existing mandibular two‐implant overdenture resulted in several improved patient‐reported outcomes.