Fixed vs removable complete arch implant prostheses: A literature review of prosthodontic outcomes.

Q1 Dentistry European Journal of Oral Implantology Pub Date : 2017-01-01
Charles Goodacre, Brian Goodacre
{"title":"Fixed vs removable complete arch implant prostheses: A literature review of prosthodontic outcomes.","authors":"Charles Goodacre,&nbsp;Brian Goodacre","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare implant fixed complete dentures with implant overdentures relative to prosthodontic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An electronic Medline (PubMed) with MeSH terms, and Cochrane library search was performed, focusing on studies that included implant fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures in the same study, with the results based on studies that included both types of prostheses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The following six categories of comparative studies were identified in the literature: 1) Implant and prosthesis survival; 2) Prosthesis maintenance/complications; 3) Bone changes; 4) Patient satisfaction and quality of life; 5) Cost-effectiveness; and 6) Masticatory performance. It was determined that both the fixed and removable treatments were associated with high implant survival rates. However, both types of prostheses were impacted by the need for post-placement mechanical maintenance or prosthetic complications. More maintenance/complications occurred with implant overdentures than with fixed complete dentures. Residual ridge resorption was greater with implant overdentures. Patient satisfaction was high with each prosthesis, with three studies revealing higher satisfaction with fixed complete dentures and five studies finding no difference. All but one study on cost-effectiveness indicated implant overdentures were more cost-effective. Based on two studies, it appears the masticatory performance of implant fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures is comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Multiple factors must be considered when determining whether an implant-fixed complete denture or implant overdentures are best suited for patients with completely edentulous jaws. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":" ","pages":"13-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To compare implant fixed complete dentures with implant overdentures relative to prosthodontic outcomes.

Material and methods: An electronic Medline (PubMed) with MeSH terms, and Cochrane library search was performed, focusing on studies that included implant fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures in the same study, with the results based on studies that included both types of prostheses.

Results: The following six categories of comparative studies were identified in the literature: 1) Implant and prosthesis survival; 2) Prosthesis maintenance/complications; 3) Bone changes; 4) Patient satisfaction and quality of life; 5) Cost-effectiveness; and 6) Masticatory performance. It was determined that both the fixed and removable treatments were associated with high implant survival rates. However, both types of prostheses were impacted by the need for post-placement mechanical maintenance or prosthetic complications. More maintenance/complications occurred with implant overdentures than with fixed complete dentures. Residual ridge resorption was greater with implant overdentures. Patient satisfaction was high with each prosthesis, with three studies revealing higher satisfaction with fixed complete dentures and five studies finding no difference. All but one study on cost-effectiveness indicated implant overdentures were more cost-effective. Based on two studies, it appears the masticatory performance of implant fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures is comparable.

Conclusions: Multiple factors must be considered when determining whether an implant-fixed complete denture or implant overdentures are best suited for patients with completely edentulous jaws. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
固定与可移动全弓种植体修复:修复效果的文献综述。
目的:比较种植固定全口义齿与种植覆盖义齿的修复效果。材料和方法:检索电子医学检索(PubMed)和Cochrane图书馆,检索同一研究中包括种植固定全口义齿和种植覆盖义齿的研究,结果基于包括两种义齿的研究。结果:文献中有以下六类比较研究:1)种植体和假体存活;2)假体维护/并发症;3)骨骼变化;4)患者满意度与生活质量;5)成本效益;6)咀嚼性能。结果表明,固定种植体和可移动种植体均可提高种植体的存活率。然而,这两种类型的假体都受到放置后机械维护或假体并发症的影响。种植覆盖义齿比固定全口义齿发生更多的维护和并发症。种植覆盖义齿的残牙吸收更大。患者对每种义齿的满意度都很高,其中3项研究显示固定全口义齿的满意度更高,5项研究没有发现差异。除了一项成本效益研究外,所有研究都表明种植覆盖义齿更具成本效益。两项研究表明,种植固定全口义齿和种植覆盖义齿的咀嚼性能是相当的。结论:在确定种植固定全口义齿或种植覆盖义齿是否适合全无牙颌患者时,必须综合考虑多种因素。利益冲突声明:作者声明他们没有利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Oral Implantology
European Journal of Oral Implantology DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.35
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Immediate loading of fixed prostheses in fully edentulous jaws - 1-year follow-up from a single-cohort retrospective study. Research in focus. Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 1-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial. Research in focus. Immediate, early (6 weeks) and delayed loading (3 months) of single, partial and full fixed implant supported prostheses: 1-year post-loading data from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1