Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this review was to analyze the evaluation criteria on mandibular implant overdentures through a systematic review and suggest standardized evaluation criteria. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted by PubMed search strategy and hand-searching of relevant journals from included studies considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and clinical trial studies comparing attachment systems on mandibular implant overdentures until December, 2011 were selected. Twenty nine studies were finally selected and the data about evaluation methods were collected. Results: Evaluation criteria could be classified into 4 groups (implant survival, peri-implant tissue evaluation, prosthetic evaluation, and patient satisfaction). Among 29 studies, 21 studies presented implant survival rate, while any studies reporting implant failure did not present cumulative implant survival rate. Seventeen studies evaluating peri-implant tissue status presented following items as evaluation criteria; marginal bone level (14), plaque Index (13), probing depth (8), bleeding index (8), attachment gingiva level (8), gingival index (6), amount of keratinized gingiva (1). Eighteen studies evaluating prosthetic maintenance and complication also presented following items as evaluation criteria; loose matrix (17), female detachment (15), denture fracture (15), denture relining (14), abutment fracture (14), abutment screw loosening (11), and occlusal adjustment (9). Atypical questionnaire (9), Visual analog scales (VAS) (4), and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) (1) were used as the format of criteria to evaluate patients satisfaction in 14 studies. Conclusion: For evaluation of implant overdenture, it is necessary to include cumulative survival rate for implant evaluation. It is suggested that peri-implant tissue evaluation criteria include marginal bone level, plaque index, bleeding index, probing depth, and attached gingiva level. It is also suggested that prosthetic evaluation criteria include loose matrix, female detachment, denture fracture, denture relining, abutment fracture, abutment screw loosening, and occlusal adjustment. Finally standardized criteria like OHIP-EDENT or VAS are required for patient satisfaction.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 325-332 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2014 Jan 1 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
Standardizing the evaluation criteria on treatment outcomes of mandibular implant overdentures : A systematic review. / Kim, Ha Young; Shin, Sang-Wan; Lee, Jeong Yol.
In: Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, Vol. 6, No. 5, 01.01.2014, p. 325-332.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Standardizing the evaluation criteria on treatment outcomes of mandibular implant overdentures
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Kim, Ha Young
AU - Shin, Sang-Wan
AU - Lee, Jeong Yol
PY - 2014/1/1
Y1 - 2014/1/1
N2 - Purpose: The aim of this review was to analyze the evaluation criteria on mandibular implant overdentures through a systematic review and suggest standardized evaluation criteria. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted by PubMed search strategy and hand-searching of relevant journals from included studies considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and clinical trial studies comparing attachment systems on mandibular implant overdentures until December, 2011 were selected. Twenty nine studies were finally selected and the data about evaluation methods were collected. Results: Evaluation criteria could be classified into 4 groups (implant survival, peri-implant tissue evaluation, prosthetic evaluation, and patient satisfaction). Among 29 studies, 21 studies presented implant survival rate, while any studies reporting implant failure did not present cumulative implant survival rate. Seventeen studies evaluating peri-implant tissue status presented following items as evaluation criteria; marginal bone level (14), plaque Index (13), probing depth (8), bleeding index (8), attachment gingiva level (8), gingival index (6), amount of keratinized gingiva (1). Eighteen studies evaluating prosthetic maintenance and complication also presented following items as evaluation criteria; loose matrix (17), female detachment (15), denture fracture (15), denture relining (14), abutment fracture (14), abutment screw loosening (11), and occlusal adjustment (9). Atypical questionnaire (9), Visual analog scales (VAS) (4), and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) (1) were used as the format of criteria to evaluate patients satisfaction in 14 studies. Conclusion: For evaluation of implant overdenture, it is necessary to include cumulative survival rate for implant evaluation. It is suggested that peri-implant tissue evaluation criteria include marginal bone level, plaque index, bleeding index, probing depth, and attached gingiva level. It is also suggested that prosthetic evaluation criteria include loose matrix, female detachment, denture fracture, denture relining, abutment fracture, abutment screw loosening, and occlusal adjustment. Finally standardized criteria like OHIP-EDENT or VAS are required for patient satisfaction.
AB - Purpose: The aim of this review was to analyze the evaluation criteria on mandibular implant overdentures through a systematic review and suggest standardized evaluation criteria. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted by PubMed search strategy and hand-searching of relevant journals from included studies considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and clinical trial studies comparing attachment systems on mandibular implant overdentures until December, 2011 were selected. Twenty nine studies were finally selected and the data about evaluation methods were collected. Results: Evaluation criteria could be classified into 4 groups (implant survival, peri-implant tissue evaluation, prosthetic evaluation, and patient satisfaction). Among 29 studies, 21 studies presented implant survival rate, while any studies reporting implant failure did not present cumulative implant survival rate. Seventeen studies evaluating peri-implant tissue status presented following items as evaluation criteria; marginal bone level (14), plaque Index (13), probing depth (8), bleeding index (8), attachment gingiva level (8), gingival index (6), amount of keratinized gingiva (1). Eighteen studies evaluating prosthetic maintenance and complication also presented following items as evaluation criteria; loose matrix (17), female detachment (15), denture fracture (15), denture relining (14), abutment fracture (14), abutment screw loosening (11), and occlusal adjustment (9). Atypical questionnaire (9), Visual analog scales (VAS) (4), and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) (1) were used as the format of criteria to evaluate patients satisfaction in 14 studies. Conclusion: For evaluation of implant overdenture, it is necessary to include cumulative survival rate for implant evaluation. It is suggested that peri-implant tissue evaluation criteria include marginal bone level, plaque index, bleeding index, probing depth, and attached gingiva level. It is also suggested that prosthetic evaluation criteria include loose matrix, female detachment, denture fracture, denture relining, abutment fracture, abutment screw loosening, and occlusal adjustment. Finally standardized criteria like OHIP-EDENT or VAS are required for patient satisfaction.
KW - Dental implants
KW - Denture
KW - Mandibular prosthesis
KW - Outcome assessment
KW - Overlay
KW - Patient satisfaction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908885886&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908885886&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4047/jap.2014.6.5.325
DO - 10.4047/jap.2014.6.5.325
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84908885886
VL - 6
SP - 325
EP - 332
JO - Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
JF - Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
SN - 2005-7806
IS - 5
ER -