Dataset Information

A comparison of cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of two- implant-retained overdentures versus other removable prosthodontic treatment options for edentulous mandible: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The aim of this study was to examine systematically the data published on the cost and cost-effectiveness of mandibular two-implant-retained overdentures compared to other removable prosthodontic treatment options for edentulous mandible.

Settings and design

It is a systematic review which analyses the available data from the prospective and retrospective studies and randomized clinical trials to find out costs and cost effectiveness of different removable treatment modalities for completely edentulous mandible. The study protocol was decided according to PRISMA guidelines.

Materials and methods

The search was limited to English literature only and included an electronic search through PubMed Central, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and complemented by hand-searching. All clinical trials published up to August 2019 were included (without any starting limit). Two independent investigators extracted the data and assessed the studies.

Statistical analysis used

No meta-analysis was conducted because of the high heterogeneity of data.

Results

Out of the initial 509 records, only nine studies were included. The risks of bias of individual studies were assessed. Six studies presented data on cost and cost analysis only. The rest three articles provided data on cost-effectiveness. The overall costs of implant overdentures were higher than the conventional complete dentures. However, implant overdentures were more cost-effective when compared to conventional complete dentures. Single-implant overdentures are also less expensive than two-implant overdentures. Overdentures supported by two or four mini-implants were also reported as more cost-effective than conventional two-implant-supported overdentures.

Conclusions

Two-implant-retained overdentures are more expensive but cost-effective than the conventional complete dentures. Two- or four-mini-implant-retained overdentures are less expensive than two-implant-retained overdentures, but there is a lack of long-term data on aftercare cost and survival rate of mini-implants. Single-implant overdentures are also less expensive than the two-implant-retained overdentures. The differences of the aftercare costs of different attachment systems for implant overdentures were not significant. There is a need of further studies on comparative cost-effectiveness of different types of implant overdentures.

SUBMITTER: Roy S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7335021 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo evaluate the influence of primary insertion torque (IT) values of narrow dental implants on the peri-implant health, implant stability, immunoinflammatory responses, bone loss, and success and survival rates.MethodsThirty-one edentulous patients received two narrow implants (2.9x10mm, Facility NeoPoros) to retain mandibular overdentures. The implants were categorized in four groups according to their IT: (G1) IT > 10 Ncm; (G2) IT ≥ 10Ncm and ≤ 30 Ncm; (G3) IT >30Ncm and < 45Ncm; (G4) IT ≥ 45Ncm, and all implants were loaded after 3 months of healing. The following clinical outcomes were evaluated 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after implant insertion: (i) peri-implant tissue health (PH), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), calculus presence (CP), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP); (ii) implant stability quotient (ISQ) by resonance frequency analysis; and (iii) IL-1β and TNF-α concentration in the peri-implant crevicular fluid. The marginal bone level (MBL) and changes (MBC) were evaluated. The Chi2 test, Kruskal-Wallis test, mixed-effects regression analysis, and the Kendall rank correlation coefficient were used for statistical analysis (α = 5%).ResultsG1 presented the highest PD at all evaluated periods. G2 presented higher PI at month 6 and 12. G4 showed increased GI at month 3 and 12 and more CP at month 1 (p=.003). G2 and G4 had higher ISQ values over the study period, while those from G1 and G3 presented lower ISQ values. The IL-1β concentration increased until month 12 and was independent of IT and bone type; G4 had a higher IL-1β concentration in month 3 than the other groups (p=.015). The TNF-α release was negatively correlated with IT, and TNF-α release was highest in G1 at month 12. The MBL immediately after surgery and the MBC at month 12 were similar between the groups, and G4 presented a positive MBC at month 12. The survival and success rates were 75% for G1, 81.3% for G2, 64.3% for G3, and 95% for G4.ConclusionThe IT did not influence the clinical outcomes and the peri-implant immunoinflammatory responses and was weakly correlated with the narrow dental implants primary stability. The observed success rates suggest that the ideal IT for atrophic fully edentulous patients may deviate from the standardized IT of 32 Ncm.

Project description:IntroductionSingle-implant mandibular overdentures (SIMOs) are one of the least invasive implant treatments for edentulism. The new Novaloc attachment system can improve the clinical performance of implant-retained overdentures but has not been tested for SIMOs.ObjectivesTo compare Novaloc and a gold standard system (Locator) for SIMOs in an edentate elderly population in terms of patient-reported outcomes and device- and treatment-related complications.MethodsIn this single-center crossover randomized clinical trial (RCT), 10 edentulous participants received an implant in the lower midline and had their lower complete dentures converted to SIMOs. The participants received each attachment system for 3 mo in a randomized order, followed by measurement of patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life via the McGill Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous People questionnaire, respectively. Complications were registered throughout the RCT. Patients were interviewed for their experiences with SIMOs and preference for one of the attachment systems. Quantitative analysis employed mixed linear models and chi-square tests (α = 0.05), whereas interview data underwent thematic analysis and, in turn, integration into quantitative data (mixed methods explanatory design).ResultsAll 10 randomized participants completed the trial. Mean ± SD general satisfaction was 92% ± 8% with Novaloc versus 85% ± 13% with Locator (mean difference, 9%; 95% CI, 1% to 17%). For specific McGill Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire items, only denture stability was significantly increased for Novaloc. Seven participants preferred Novaloc over Locator at the end of the RCT (chi-square, P = 0.045). No difference was found between the attachments in terms of oral health-related quality of life based on the Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous People and complications. Thematic analysis revealed high patient satisfaction with SIMOs, with denture stability the main criterion for their satisfaction and attachment preference.ConclusionAmong elderly edentulous patients wearing SIMOs, Novaloc led to increased patient satisfaction and preference. Better patient-perceived denture stability may explain this result. The attachment systems exhibited similar short-term maintenance needs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03126942 (first registered on April 13, 2017). Secondary identifiers: A03-M07-17A (McGill University, Institutional Review Board) and 2018-3873 (McGill University Health Centre, Research Ethics Board).Knowledge transfer statementThe results of this mixed methods study can be used by clinicians when choosing which attachment system to use for SIMOs. Results suggest that edentulous patients prefer attachments with a better-defined seating position, such as that of the Novaloc system, as opposed to the nylon matrix on metallic abutment of the Locator system.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw-retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).Material and methodsA systematic literature search for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3- and 5-year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.ResultsAfter title, abstract, and full-text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5-year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsImplant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high-quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Overdentures retained by a single implant in the midline have arisen as a minimal implant treatment for edentulous mandibles. The success of this treatment depends on the performance of a single stud attachment that is susceptible to wear-related retention loss. Recently developed biomaterials used in attachments may result in better performance of the overdentures, offering minimal retention loss and greater patient satisfaction. These biomaterials include resistant polymeric matrixes and amorphous diamond-like carbon applied on metallic components. The objective of this explanatory mixed-methods study is to compare Novaloc, a novel attachment system with such characteristics, to a traditional alternative for single implants in the mandible of edentate elderly patients. METHODS/DESIGN:We will carry out a randomized cross-over clinical trial comparing Novaloc attachments to Locators for single-implant mandibular overdentures in edentate elderly individuals. Participants will be followed for three months with each attachment type; patient-based, clinical, and economic outcomes will be gathered. A sample of 26 participants is estimated to be required to detect clinically relevant differences in terms of the primary outcome (patient ratings of general satisfaction). Participants will choose which attachment they wish to keep, then be interviewed about their experiences and preferences with a single implant prosthesis and with the two attachments. Data from the quantitative and qualitative assessments will be integrated through a mixed-methods explanatory strategy. A last quantitative assessment will take place after 12 months with the preferred attachment; this latter assessment will enable measurement of the attachments' long-term wear and maintenance requirements. DISCUSSION:Our results will lead to evidence-based recommendations regarding these systems, guiding providers and patients when making decisions on which attachment systems and implant numbers will be most appropriate for individual cases. The recommendation of a specific attachment for elderly edentulous patients may combine positive outcomes from patient perspectives with low cost, good maintenance, and minimal invasiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03126942 . Registered on 13 April 2017.

Project description:BackgroundConsistency in outcomes across clinical trials allows for comparing and combining results from different studies. A core outcome set (COS), representing a minimally agreed standardized group of outcomes that should be monitored and measured through research in a specific field of medicine, is not yet available for trials in implant prosthodontic (dental implant) therapy. This meta-research study aimed to analyze outcomes used in clinical trials on implant prosthodontic therapy.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) register to identify systematic reviews of interventions in implant prosthodontic therapy published by October 2023. From the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the relevant reviews, we extracted data on the characteristics of the included trials and the outcomes used. We categorized outcomes into domains.ResultsFrom 182 systematic reviews in the COHG register, we included 11 systematic reviews on dental implant therapy. The reviews included 117 unique RCTs with 4725 participants, published from 1995 to 2020, which analyzed 74 different outcomes. Using different definitions, implant failure was analyzed in 73 RCTs. Seventeen RCTs did not define implant failure. Failure was most often (30 RCTs) followed up for one year. Only one RCT assessed implant failure after five years. Trials used 17 definitions of implant failure, while 17 trials did not report on the criteria of implant failure. Complications were analyzed in 48 RCTs, although they were not clearly defined in 12 RCTs. Failure of prosthodontic supra-structure was analyzed in 74 RCTs, with definitions of failure and criteria not clearly defined in 44 RCTs. Trials considered adverse events, peri-implant tissue health, patient attitudes, and other outcomes, including cost, aesthetics, or procedure duration. These outcomes were often different between trials. Twenty-six outcomes were used only once per study.ConclusionsClinical trials in implant prosthodontics used different outcomes, different definitions of outcomes and used different times to monitor them. Standardization of outcomes is necessary to allow comparability and evidence synthesis about the effectiveness of implant prosthodontic therapy.