Overdentures Supported by Mini or Conventional Implants-effect on Patient Satisfaction and Bone Resorption Rates. A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the difference between patient satisfaction and bone height changes of mini-implant supported overdentures in comparison with conventional implant after bone expansion technique. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial contains 36 edentulous participants with thin mandibular ridges randomly divided to receive 2 mini-implants, or 2 conventional implants after ridge splitting, both treatments were done in the inter-forminal area of the anterior mandible. Then, the patients received mandibular overdentures with ball and socket attachments. At base line, after 6 and 12 months of loading the implants, patients’ satisfaction was evaluated using visual analog scale, in addition to bone height changes using Soredex DIGORA Optime Classic software. RESULTS: There was statistically significant difference in the overall satisfaction between the mini-implants and the conventional implants group; the amount of bone height changes in the mini-implant group was statistically significant less than the conventional implant group at base line, 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: Treatment with two mini-implants provides high level of satisfaction and less bone height changes in a follow-up period of 12 months in comparison to conventional implants after ridge expansion.

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

“…Among the 28 included studies were 15 RCTs (Abou‐Ayash et al, 2020; Al‐Zubeidi et al, 2012; Bryant et al, 2015; De Kok et al, 2011; de Resende et al, 2021; De Souza et al, 2015; Gaballa et al, 2021; Hartmann, Bandeira, et al, 2020; MacEntee et al, 2005; Meijer et al, 2003; Michaud et al, 2012; Montero et al, 2021; Park et al, 2019; Raghoebar et al, 2003; Slot et al, 2016) and 13 prospective studies (Ala et al, 2022; Alfadda et al, 2009; Attard et al, 2006; Berretin‐Felix et al, 2008; Compagnoni et al, 2014; Coutinho et al, 2021; Emami et al, 2015; Guljé et al, 2012; Jabbour et al, 2012; Matthys et al, 2018, 2019; Reissmann et al, 2018; Tomasi et al, 2013). Among the RCTs, only 2 compared IFCDs and IODs directly (De Kok et al, 2011; Hartmann, Bandeira, et al, 2020).…”

“…For more than 4 implants, there was only one cohort from one study (Slot et al, 2016) with IODs on bars, which was excluded from this analysis due to the lack of comparison with single attachment retained IODs on the same number of implants. Consequently, 20 studies were included for the analysis (Alfadda et al, 2009; Al‐Zubeidi et al, 2012; Attard et al, 2006; Bryant et al, 2015; De Kok et al, 2011; De Souza et al, 2015; Emami et al, 2015; Gaballa et al, 2021; Guljé et al, 2012; Hartmann, Bandeira, et al, 2020; Matthys et al, 2018, 2019; Meijer et al, 2003; Michaud et al, 2012; Montero et al, 2021; Park et al, 2019; Raghoebar et al, 2003; Reissmann et al, 2018; Slot et al, 2016; Tomasi et al, 2013). There was no significant difference between bars and single attachments (ES difference: −0.08 [−0.72, 0.56]; Table 5).…”

“…There was no significant effect of the mean follow‐up period or the number of implants per implant IODs on ES in general (Table 5). However, the ES difference for the direct comparison of single implant‐ and two implant‐retained IODs was significant (0.72 [0.38, 1.06]; p < .001), indicating a medium to large difference, based on included studies (Abou‐Ayash et al, 2020; Ala et al, 2022; Al‐Zubeidi et al, 2012; Bryant et al, 2015; Coutinho et al, 2021; De Kok et al, 2011; De Souza et al, 2015; Gaballa et al, 2021; Hartmann, Bandeira, et al, 2020; Jabbour et al, 2012; Matthys et al, 2018, 2019; Michaud et al, 2012; Montero et al, 2021). The certainty of evidence for all meta‐analyses was rated as low, based on the GRADE analysis (Table 6).…”

Narrow‐diameter versus regular‐diameter dental implants for mandibular overdentures: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…This study included 12 publications based on a total of 8 independent studies 23–34 . Methodological characteristics of these included studies are given in Table 1.…”

“…Two parallel design RCTs compared three experimental groups: a 2‐implant RDI group and two NDI groups (2‐implant group and 4‐implant group) 23,24 . One RCT 25 and two CCTs 26,30 compared a 2‐implant NDI group to a 2‐impant RDI group and 2 studies (1 parallel design RCT 27 and 1 CCT 28 ) compared a 4‐implant NDI group to a 2‐implant RDI group.…”