The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Unsplinted Attachment Systems and Peri-implant Outcomes in Two-implant-retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Liang Lin Seow, Ting Jing Kweh, Smita Nimbalkar

Keywords : Edentulism, Geriatric dentistry, Implant dentistry, Mandibular overdenture

Citation Information : Seow LL, Kweh TJ, Nimbalkar S. Unsplinted Attachment Systems and Peri-implant Outcomes in Two-implant-retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (11):1346-1354.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3228

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 24-02-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim: The purpose of this review is to compare randomized clinical trials evaluating the peri-implant tissue outcomes using different unsplinted attachment systems in two implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Background: Literature lacks information on various unsplinted attachment systems and their effect on peri-implant tissue health. A focus question (as per PICOS) was set as follows: Does one particular unsplinted attachment system (I) compared with another (C) results in better peri-implant outcomes (O) in two implant-retained mandibular overdentures (P) using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (S)? The literature search was conducted in the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases between January 2011 and December 2021. The keywords used were “denture, overlay,” “denture,” “overlay” AND “dental prosthesis, implant supported,” “dental implants,” “dental implant abutment design” AND “jaw, edentulous,” “mouth, edentulous” AND “mandible.” Only RCTs on two implant-retained mandibular overdentures using unsplinted attachment systems measuring peri-implant tissue outcomes with minimum 1-year follow-up were selected. In total, 224 studies were identified in initial search, and 25 were shortlisted for full-text evaluation. Four studies were included for systematic review upon considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0). Review results: A total of 41 patients received ball attachments (in 3 studies), 36 patients received low-profile attachments (in 3 studies), 16 patients received magnet attachments (in 1 study), and 13 patients received telescopic attachments (in 1 study). All four studies used standard sized implants, however, differed in implant manufacturers. Two studies which compared ball attachments low-profile attachments revealed-similar peri-implant tissue health parameters but differed in crestal bone-level changes. One study compared ball with telescopic attachments and revealed similar results in crestal bone-level changes and all four peri-implant tissue health parameters. Single study compared magnets with low-profile attachments and shown lesser bone loss with magnet attachments. Single study was judged to have low risk of bias, single with some concerns, and remaining two to have high risk of bias. Conclusion: Gingival index and bleeding index of the patients were not influenced by any of the unsplinted overdenture attachment (stud, magnet, telescopic) system. Inconclusive results found among the studies evaluated comparing crestal bone loss and plaque index. Clinical significance: This review manuscript has simplified comparative analysis of different unsplinted attachment systems used in two implant mandibular overdentures to help clinicians choose correct system in such situation.

  1. Felton DA. Edentulism and comorbid factors. J Prosthodont 2009;18(2):88–96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00437.x.
  2. van Waas MA. Determinants of dissatisfaction with dentures: a multiple regression analysis. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64(5):569–572. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90130-5.
  3. Roccuzzo M, Bonino F, Gaudioso L, et al. What is the optimal number of implants for removable reconstructions? A systematic review on implant-supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 6:229–237. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02544.x.
  4. Daudt Polido W, Aghaloo T, Emmett TW, et al. Number of implants placed for complete-arch fixed prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29 Suppl 16:154–183. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13312.
  5. Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27(2):174–195. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12531.
  6. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17(4):601–602. PMID: 12182304.
  7. Das KP, Jahangiri L, Katz RV. The first-choice standard of care for an edentulous mandible: a Delphi method survey of academic prosthodontists in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc 2012;143(8): 881–889. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0292.
  8. Prieskel HW. Telescopic prostheses. In: Preiskel HW, editor. Precision attachments in prosthodontics: overdentures and telescopic prostheses. vol. 2. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.; 1985. p. 307–328.
  9. Preiskel HW. Overdentures made easy: a guide to implant and root supported prostheses. 1st ed. Chicago, Illinois, USA: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.; 1996.
  10. Ahuja S, Cagna DR. Classification and management of restorative space in edentulous implant overdenture patients. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105(5):332–337. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60064-4.
  11. Bhargava A, Sehgal M, Gupta S, et al. Classification system on the selection of number of implants and superstructure design on the basis available vertical restorative space and interforaminal distance for implant supported mandibular overdenture. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16(2):131–135. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.176541.
  12. Scherer MD, McGlumphy EA, Seghi RR, et al. Comparison of retention and stability of two implant-retained overdentures based on implant location. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(3):515–521. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.003.
  13. Hegazy SA, El Mekawy N, Emera RMK. Impact of implants number and attachment type on the peri-implant stresses and retention of palateless implant-retained overdenture. Indian J Dent Res 2020;31(3):414–419. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_772_18.
  14. Gonçalves F, Campestrini VLL, Rigo-Rodrigues MA, et al. Effect of the attachment system on the biomechanical and clinical performance of overdentures: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(4): 589–594. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.024.
  15. Miler AMQP, Correia ARM, Rocha JMC, et al. Locator® attachment system for implant overdentures: a systematic review. Stomatologija 2017;19(4):124–129. PMID: 29806650.
  16. Keshk AM, Alqutaibi AY, Algabri RS, et al. Prosthodontic maintenance and peri-implant tissue conditions for telescopic attachment-retained mandibular implant overdenture: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Dent 2017;11(4): 559–568. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_23_17.
  17. Kutkut A, Rezk M, Zephyr D, et al. Immediate loading of unsplinted implant retained mandibular overdenture: a randomized controlled clinical study. J Oral Implantol 2019;45(5):378–389. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00202.
  18. Maniewicz S, Buser R, Duvernay E, et al. Short dental implants retaining two-implant mandibular overdentures in very old, dependent patients: radiologic and clinical observation up to 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(2):415–422. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5361.
  19. Elsyad MA, Khirallah AS. Circumferential bone loss around splinted and nonsplinted immediately loaded implants retaining mandibular overdentures: a randomized controlled clinical trial using cone beam computed tomography. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116(5):741–748. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.03.005.
  20. Zygogiannis K, Aartman IH, Parsa A, et al. Implant mandibular overdentures retained by immediately loaded implants: a 1-year randomized trial comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between mini dental implants and standard-sized implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(6):1377–1388. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5981.
  21. Stoker G, van Waas R, Wismeijer D. Long-term outcomes of three types of implant-supported mandibular overdentures in smokers. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(8):925–929. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02237.x.
  22. Schincaglia GP, Rubin S, Thacker S, et al. Marginal bone response around immediate-and delayed-loading implants supporting a locator-retained mandibular overdenture: a randomized controlled study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(2):448–458. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4118.
  23. Ma S, Tawse-Smith A, De Silva RK, et al. Maxillary three-implant overdentures opposing mandibular two-implant overdentures: 10-year surgical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18(3):527–544. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12325.
  24. Ter Gunne LP, Dikkes B, Wismeijer D, et al. Immediate and early loading of two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures: three-year report of loading results of a single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(5):1110–1116. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4561.
  25. Elsyad MA, Elsaih EA, Khairallah AS. Marginal bone resorption around immediate and delayed loaded implants supporting a locator-retained mandibular overdenture. A 1-year randomised controlled trial. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41(8):608–618. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12182.
  26. Elsyad MA, Al-Mahdy YF, Fouad MM. Marginal bone loss adjacent to conventional and immediate loaded two implants supporting a ball-retained mandibular overdenture: a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(4):496–503. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02173.x.
  27. Gadallah AA, Youssef HG, Shawky YM. A comparative study between early occlusal loading at 1 and 6 weeks in implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Implant Dent 2012;21(3):242–247. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31824eeaa5.
  28. Mumcu E, Bilhan H, Geckili O. The influence of healing type on marginal bone levels of implants supporting mandibular overdentures: a randomized clinical study. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:514–518. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.104961.
  29. Srinivasan M, Schimmel M, Buser R, et al. Mandibular two-implant overdentures with CAD-CAM milled bars with distal extensions or retentive anchors: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31(12):1207–1222. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13668.
  30. Akoglu B, Ucankale M, Ozkan Y, et al. Five-year treatment outcomes with three brands of implants supporting mandibular overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(1):188–194. PMID: 21365055.
  31. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Fuhrmann DM, et al. Seven-year follow-up results of TiUnite implants supporting mandibular overdentures: early versus delayed loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14 Suppl 1:e83–e90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00365.x.
  32. Müller F, Al-Nawas B, Storelli S, et al. Small-diameter titanium grade IV and titanium-zirconium implants in edentulous mandibles: five-year results from a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. BMC Oral Health 2015;15(1):123. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0107-6.
  33. Reis R, Nicolau P, Calha N, et al. Immediate versus early loading protocols of titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter implants for mandibular overdentures in edentulous patients: 1-year results from a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30(10): 953–961. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13502.
  34. Quirynen M, Al-Nawas B, Meijer HJ, et al. Small-diameter titanium Grade IV and titanium-zirconium implants in edentulous mandibles: three-year results from a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(7):831–840. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12367.
  35. Salman A, Thacker S, Rubin S, et al. Immediate versus delayed loading of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a 60-month follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46(8):863–871. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13153.
  36. Akça K, Çavuşoğlu Y, Sağirkaya E, et al. Early-loaded one-stage implants retaining mandibular overdentures by two different mechanisms: 5-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28(3):824–830. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2994.
  37. Elsyad MA, Mahanna FF, Elshahat MA, et al. Locators versus magnetic attachment effect on peri-implant tissue health of immediate loaded two implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: a 1-year randomised trial. J Oral Rehabil 2016;43(4):297–305. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12368.
  38. Aunmeungtong W, Kumchai T, Strietzel FP, et al. Comparative clinical study of conventional dental implants and mini dental implants for mandibular overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19(2):328–340. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12461.
  39. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, et al. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(6):1560–1568. PMID: 23189311.
  40. ElSyad MA, Denewar BA, Elsaih EA. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of bar, telescopic, and locator attachments for implant-stabilized overdentures in patients with mandibular atrophied ridges: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33(5):1103–1111. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6363.
  41. Cepa S, Koller B, Spies BC, et al. Implant-retained prostheses: ball vs conus attachments – a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(2):177–185. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12779.
  42. Gholami H, Mericske-Stern R, Kessler-Liechti G, et al. Radiographic bone level changes of implant-supported restorations in edentulous and partially dentate patients: 5-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(4):898–904. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3042.
  43. Patil PG, Nimbalkar-Patil S. A radiographic measurement technique for crest bone changes related to dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113(4):350–351. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.11.002.
  44. Patil PG, Seow LL. Crestal bone-level changes and patient satisfaction with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants with immediate loading protocols: a randomized controlled clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(5):710–716. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.07.015.
  45. Cehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kökat AM, et al. A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25(2):266–277. PMID: 20369084.
  46. Walton TR, Layton DM. Intra-and inter-examiner agreement when assessing radiographic implant bone levels: differences related to brightness, accuracy, participant demographics and implant characteristics. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(7):756–771. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13290.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.