Standardizing the evaluation criteria on treatment outcomes of mandibular implant overdentures: A systematic review

Ha Young Kim, Sang-Wan Shin, Jeong Yol Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)325-332
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Advanced Prosthodontics
Volume6
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Overlay Denture
Denture Rebasing
Gingiva
Occlusal Adjustment
Patient Satisfaction
Dentures
Oral Health
Visual Analog Scale
Hemorrhage
Bone and Bones
Periodontal Index
PubMed

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 journalArticle

@article{7a28d139dc2b442cb6d7d6617a6288f1,
title = "Standardizing the evaluation criteria on treatment outcomes of mandibular implant overdentures: A systematic review",
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.",
keywords = "Dental implants, Denture, Mandibular prosthesis, Outcome assessment, Overlay, Patient satisfaction",
author = "Kim, {Ha Young} and Sang-Wan Shin and Lee, {Jeong Yol}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4047/jap.2014.6.5.325",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "325--332",
journal = "Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics",
issn = "2005-7806",
publisher = "The Korean Academy of prosthodontics",
number = "5",

}

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 -