Splinting vs Not Splinting Four Implants Supporting a Maxillary Overdenture: A Systematic Review

Francesco, Fabrizio Di; Marco, Gennaro De; Sommella, Attilio; Lanza, Antonio

doi:10.11607/ijp.6333

Cited by 30 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An additional subgroup analysis evaluating the potential influence of primary splinting (or not) the implants on their survival rate was performed. Primary splinted were assumed those implants connected by bars or fixed restorations, whereas, in case of double crown‐ or Locator‐retained overdentures they were considered unsplinted (Di Francesco et al., 2019; Leao et al., 2018; Stoumpis & Kohal, 2011).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective long‐term clinical evaluation of implant‐prosthetic rehabilitations after head and neck cancer therapy

Pieralli

Spies

Schweppe

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess clinical and patient‐reported outcomes of implant‐prosthetic rehabilitations in patients with a history of head–neck cancer (HNC), treated with tumor resection without (TR) or with adjuvant radiotherapy (TR/RT). A healthy cohort rehabilitated with the same reconstructive protocols served as control group (C). Materials and Methods A total of 28 women and 29 men were considered in the present retrospective study. Participants received 322 implants, finally supporting 79 prosthetic reconstructions. Primary outcome was the assessment of implant and prosthetic survival rates. Furthermore peri‐implant soft tissue parameters (attached peri‐implant mucosa, AM; modified bleeding and plaque indices, mBI/mPI; probing depth, PD) and prosthetic technical complications were documented. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) by means of visual analog scales (VAS) and the Oral Health Impact Profile German 14 form (OHIP G14) were collected. For statistical purposes Chi‐square and Mann–Whitney‐U‐Test were adapted. Results After a mean follow‐up of 81.2 ± 50.3 months, implant survival rate was 98.1% (HNC‐TR), 98.2% (HNC‐TR/RT) and 100.0% (C), respectively (four implants failed in the HNC groups). HNC‐TR/RT showed significant higher mPI and mBI compared to C. Within HNC‐TR/RT, vestibuloplasty significantly reduced mBI and PD values. No failures occurred at the prosthetic level. Overall, higher VAS scores were reported for bar‐ compared with Locator‐retained prostheses. Furthermore, increased OHIP G14 values resulted for HNC‐TR/RT. Conclusions High survival rates on implant and prosthetic level were observed. The use of soft tissue grafts resulted in stabilization of the peri‐implant mucosa in irradiated patients. In terms of retention and chewing ability, participants preferred bars over Locator attachments.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective long‐term clinical evaluation of implant‐prosthetic rehabilitations after head and neck cancer therapy

Pieralli

Spies

Schweppe

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients from a clinical trial, with al implants placed in the anterior position, by Boven et al (2020), also experienced more marginal bone loss around four unsplinted compared with splinted implants after 1 year. By contrast, others did not see a clear benefit in splinting the implants, placed in various positions, in maxillary overdenture treatment (Ma et al, 2016;Leão et al, 2018;Di Francesco et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 10‐year randomized controlled trial results

Slot

Raghoebar

Cune

et al. 2022

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To evaluate bar‐supported maxillary implant overdenture treatment when supported by either four or six implants after 10 years. Materials and Methods Edentulous subjects with maxillary denture complaints and ample bone volume to facilitate implants in the anterior region of the maxilla were planned for implant overdenture treatment, randomized to receive either four implants (n = 25) or six implants (n = 25) and subsequently evaluated after 10 years of function. Outcome variables included peri‐implant bone‐level changes, implant and overdenture survival, complications, presence of plaque, calculus and bleeding, degree of peri‐implant inflammation, probing depth and patient satisfaction. Differences between the groups and between evaluation periods were tested with a Student's t‐test. Results Fourteen patients with totally 72 implants were lost to follow‐up. Two patients from the six‐implant group experienced implant loss (four implants), resulting in 96.1% implant survival in this group versus 100% survival in the four‐implant group. Clinical, radiographical and patient‐reported outcome measures did not differ statistically significant between the two groups. Patients from both groups were generally quite satisfied with the result after 10 years. Conclusions Similar and favourable outcomes are seen in bar‐supported maxillary overdentures on either four or six anteriorly placed implants after a 10‐year evaluation period.

show abstract

“…A systematic research, carried out from 2000. to 2018., investigated the influence of splinted vs. unsplinted designs for 4 implants retained maxillary overdentures in terms of the outcome assessed in implant survival, prosthodontic longevity and patients' satisfaction. The results revealed no influence of the overdenture design on survival rates of both implants and dentures, as well as on patients' satisfaction with implant survival rate higher than 97%, overdenture survival rate of 100% and patients' satisfaction scores higher than 4.5 (on a 1 to 5 Likert scale) for general satisfaction, chewing ability, denture stabilization, esthetic results and speech [73].…”

Section: Types Of Attachment Systems On Implant-retained Overdenturesmentioning

confidence: 84%

Implant-Retained Maxillary and Mandibular Overdentures - A Solution for Completely Edentulous Patients

Zlatarić¹,

Ćelić²,

Pezo³

2022

Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main goal of modern removable prosthodontics is to restore the normal appearance, function, esthetics and speech in each completely edentulous patient. However, if all teeth are missing in a patient, it becomes very complicated to achieve it using traditional protocols. Therefore, implants were introduced into removable prosthodontics to ensure better retention and stability of the conventional dentures. In case of a large amount of bone missing in the jaw it is necessary to ensure the functioning of the dentures constructing various additional stabilizing and retentive prosthodontic solutions on the osseointegrated implants. Numerous types of attachment systems have been used recently for relating implant-retained overdentures to underlying implants: basically splinting (various bar shape designs) and non-splinting attachments (various ball type attachment, magnet attachment, telescopic coping systems). Indications for their use depend on the surgical and prosthodontic factors such as the number and position of the implants, the amount of free intermaxillary space and the type and size of the overdentures. Different indications, types of the overdentures and the attachment systems will be discussed in this chapter.

show abstract

Splinting vs Not Splinting Four Implants Supporting a Maxillary Overdenture: A Systematic Review

Cited by 30 publications

References 20 publications

Retrospective long‐term clinical evaluation of implant‐prosthetic rehabilitations after head and neck cancer therapy

Retrospective long‐term clinical evaluation of implant‐prosthetic rehabilitations after head and neck cancer therapy

Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 10‐year randomized controlled trial results

Implant-Retained Maxillary and Mandibular Overdentures - A Solution for Completely Edentulous Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About