Leão R S, Moraes S L D, Vasconcelos B C E, Lemos C A A, Pellizzer E P
Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Pernambuco (UPE), Recife, Brazil.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dentistry School, University of Pernambuco (UPE), Recife, Brazil.
J Oral Rehabil. 2018 Aug;45(8):647-656. doi: 10.1111/joor.12651. Epub 2018 Jun 7.
Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems have unique advantages and disadvantages. The aim of the present systematic review was to determine the influence of splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems on the marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published up to October 2017, using the following search terms: "overdenture AND attachment OR overdenture AND bar OR overdenture splinted." The PICO question "Do splinted overdenture attachment systems promote better clinical results in comparison to unsplinted systems?" was evaluated. Eligible studies included randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective studies with at least 10 participants and a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and studies published in English that compared splinted and unsplinted attachment systems within the same study. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was considered for all outcomes analysed. After completion of the different steps in the article selection process, nine articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 984 implants were placed in 380 patients (mean age: 62.8 years). The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between splinted and unsplinted attachment systems with regard to marginal bone loss (P = .39; MD: -0.11; 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.14), complications (P = .31; RR: 1.26; CI: 0.80-1.99) and implant survival rate (P = .14; RR: 0.37% CI: 0.10-1.36). In addition, splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems achieved similar results with regard to marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate.
带夹板和不带夹板的覆盖义齿附着系统都有其独特的优缺点。本系统评价的目的是确定带夹板和不带夹板的覆盖义齿附着系统对边缘骨吸收、修复并发症及种植体存留率的影响。通过检索PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus和Cochrane数据库,查找截至2017年10月发表的文章,检索词如下:“覆盖义齿 AND 附着”或“覆盖义齿 AND 杆”或“覆盖义齿夹板”。对“与未带夹板的系统相比,带夹板的覆盖义齿附着系统是否能带来更好的临床效果?”这一PICO问题进行了评估。纳入的研究包括随机对照临床试验、至少有10名参与者且随访时间至少为6个月的前瞻性研究,以及在同一研究中比较带夹板和不带夹板附着系统且以英文发表的研究。对所有分析的结果均采用95%置信区间(CI)。在完成文章筛选过程中的不同步骤后,9篇文章被纳入定性和定量分析。共380例患者(平均年龄:62.8岁)植入了984颗种植体。荟萃分析表明,在边缘骨吸收方面(P = 0.39;MD:-0.11;95%CI:-0.37至0.14)、并发症方面(P = 0.31;RR:1.26;CI:0.80 - 1.99)以及种植体存留率方面(P = 0.14;RR:0.37%CI:0.10 - 1.36),带夹板和不带夹板的附着系统之间无统计学显著差异。此外,在边缘骨吸收、修复并发症及种植体存留率方面,带夹板和不带夹板的覆盖义齿附着系统取得了相似的结果。