Kutkut Ahmad, Bertoli Elizangela, Frazer Robert, Pinto-Sinai Gitanjali, Fuentealba Hidalgo Rodrigo, Studts Jamie
Division of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Division of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Jan;62(1):1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.06.004. Epub 2017 Jun 27.
Several studies reported better outcomes when restoring edentulous mandible with unsplinted IODs compared to CCDs; however, it is not clear if these outcomes remain when the full literature is considered. The aim of this systematic review is to compare conventional complete dentures (CCDs) to unsplinted implant-retained overdentures (IODs) with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life.
The main question addressed was: How do CCDs compare to unsplinted IODs with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life? Three databases were electronically searched to identify articles comparing CCD to unsplinted IOD. Twenty-six articles were selected and reviewed in full. Of these selected articles, twenty-five compared CCDs restoring function in both arches to a maxillary CCD opposing a mandibular IOD retained by two unsplinted implants. Only one articles compared a maxillary CCDs to a maxillary IOD.
Outcome measures varied among the studies, including the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), visual analogue scales (VAS), and masticatory performance tests. Overall, IODs were associated with significantly better patient's masticatory performance and quality of life as indicated by Oral Health as Related to Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Mandibular unsplinted IODs were more likely than CCDs to be associated with improved OHRQoL for edentulous patients and were associated with significantly higher ratings of overall satisfaction, comfort, stability, ability to speak and ability to chew.
Results of this systematic review indicate the superiority of IODs retained by two unsplinted mandibular implants when compared to CCDs with regards to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life.
多项研究报告称，与传统全口义齿相比，使用未用夹板固定的种植体支持覆盖义齿修复无牙下颌时效果更佳；然而，考虑全部文献时，这些结果是否仍然成立尚不清楚。本系统评价的目的是比较传统全口义齿（CCDs）与未用夹板固定的种植体支持覆盖义齿（IODs）在疗效、满意度和生活质量方面的差异。
主要探讨的问题是：在疗效、满意度和生活质量方面，CCDs与未用夹板固定的IODs相比如何？通过电子检索三个数据库以识别比较CCDs与未用夹板固定的IODs的文章。共筛选出26篇文章并进行全文审阅。在这些入选文章中，25篇比较了双侧弓修复功能的CCDs与上颌CCDs对抗由两颗未用夹板固定的种植体支持的下颌IODs的情况。只有一篇文章比较了上颌CCDs与上颌IODs。
各研究中的结局指标各不相同，包括口腔健康影响程度量表（OHIP）、视觉模拟量表（VAS）和咀嚼性能测试。总体而言，如口腔健康相关生活质量（OHRQoL）所示，IODs与患者明显更好的咀嚼性能和生活质量相关。对于无牙患者，下颌未用夹板固定的IODs比CCDs更有可能改善OHRQoL，并且与总体满意度、舒适度、稳定性、说话能力和咀嚼能力的评分显著更高相关。
本系统评价结果表明，与CCDs相比，两颗未用夹板固定的下颌种植体支持的IODs在疗效、满意度和生活质量方面具有优越性。
