What Is the Best Tooth-Supported Attachment System for Distal-Extension Removable Partial Dentures? A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Camila Alves Carneiro, Joel Ferreira Santiago Junior, Laura Catalí Ferreira Peralta, Karin Hermana Neppelenbroek, Vinicius Carvalho Porto
{"title":"What Is the Best Tooth-Supported Attachment System for Distal-Extension Removable Partial Dentures? A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.","authors":"Camila Alves Carneiro, Joel Ferreira Santiago Junior, Laura Catalí Ferreira Peralta, Karin Hermana Neppelenbroek, Vinicius Carvalho Porto","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the published literature on tooth-tissue supported removable partial dentures (RPDs) and determine the attachment system that provides the best clinical outcome.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of studies published up to November 2021 was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. The study protocol was approved and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42021268449). The PICO question was, 'What is the best attachment system used in Kennedy class I and II removable partial dentures?'</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 871 articles, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. The evaluation period in the studies ranged from 3 to 282 months. A total of 1,357 patients were included, of which 526 used prostheses with attachments. The mini SG attachment (extracoronal) was the most commonly used attachment, and the survival rate ranged from 37% to 98.1% in 10 studies, with no significant differences between the systems. Among the 10 studies selected for quantitative analysis, the meta-analysis revealed an overall failure rate of 16.6% (95% CI: 10.4% to 25.4%) and heterogeneity of I² &#61; 65.725 (q value: 26.258, P &#61; .002).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinical studies comparing different attachment systems for rehabilitation are lacking. Our findings suggest that attachment-retained RPDs have good retention and better esthetics than conventional RPDs, and the extracoronal attachment system is the most viable choice for treatment at the free end.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"460-468"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8337","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the published literature on tooth-tissue supported removable partial dentures (RPDs) and determine the attachment system that provides the best clinical outcome.

Materials and methods: A comprehensive search of studies published up to November 2021 was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. The study protocol was approved and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42021268449). The PICO question was, 'What is the best attachment system used in Kennedy class I and II removable partial dentures?'

Results: The search identified 871 articles, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. The evaluation period in the studies ranged from 3 to 282 months. A total of 1,357 patients were included, of which 526 used prostheses with attachments. The mini SG attachment (extracoronal) was the most commonly used attachment, and the survival rate ranged from 37% to 98.1% in 10 studies, with no significant differences between the systems. Among the 10 studies selected for quantitative analysis, the meta-analysis revealed an overall failure rate of 16.6% (95% CI: 10.4% to 25.4%) and heterogeneity of I² = 65.725 (q value: 26.258, P = .002).

Conclusions: Clinical studies comparing different attachment systems for rehabilitation are lacking. Our findings suggest that attachment-retained RPDs have good retention and better esthetics than conventional RPDs, and the extracoronal attachment system is the most viable choice for treatment at the free end.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
适用于远端可移除部分义齿的最佳牙齿支撑附着系统是什么?Meta分析系统综述。
目的:评估已发表的关于牙齿组织支持可摘局部义齿(RPD)的文献,并确定能提供最佳临床结果的附着系统。材料和方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)标准,在PubMed/MEDLINE、Web of Science和Cochrane Library数据库中对截至2021年11月发表的研究进行了全面搜索。该研究方案获得批准,并在国际前瞻性系统评价注册中心(PROSPERO:CD420212668449)注册。PICO的问题是,“肯尼迪I级和II级可摘局部义齿使用的最佳附着系统是什么?”结果:搜索确定了871篇文章,其中21篇符合入选标准。研究中的评估期从3个月到282个月不等。共纳入1357名患者,其中526人使用带附件的假体。迷你SG附件(冠状动脉外)是最常用的附件,在10项研究中,存活率在37%至98.1%之间,两种系统之间没有显著差异。在选择进行定量分析的10项研究中,荟萃分析显示总体失败率为16.6%(95%置信区间:10.4-25.4%),异质性I²=65.725(Q值:26.258,P=0.002)。结论:缺乏比较不同康复附件系统的临床研究。我们的研究结果表明,附着物保留型RPD比传统RPD具有良好的保留力和更好的美学效果,冠状动脉外附着系统是治疗自由端最可行的选择。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Digital Workflow for Rehabilitation of Severely Discolored Teeth Due to Red Staining from Endodontic Material. Influence of Different Cements on Bonding Efficiency Between Implant Abutment and Standard Restoration. Thirty-Year Clinical Performance of Double-Crown Retained Removable Partial Dentures - A Practice-Based Retrospective Study. Evaluation of the Bond Strengths Between Dental Ceramics and Co-Cr Frameworks Made with Digital and Conventional Techniques. 3D-Printed Permanent Resin Crowns on Pre-Molar and Molar Teeth; Two-Year Results of a Prospective Clinical Study.
×
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