Department of Oral Implantology, Stomatological Hospital of Xiamen Medical College, Xiamen Key Laboratory of Stomatological Disease Diagnosis and Treatment, Fujian, China.
J Oral Implantol. 2022 Feb 1;48(1):64-73. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00265.
Clinicians treating overdenture patients need to know if immediate loading and conventional loading results in similar outcomes. This study aimed to perform a systematic literature search of studies comparing immediate and conventional loading of mandibular overdentures irrespective of the number of implants and conduct a meta-analysis of implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL). A literature search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Ovoid, Springer, and Google Scholar databases was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate vs conventional loading of mandibular overdentures. The primary outcome was implant failure and the secondary outcome was marginal bine loss (MBL). A descriptive analysis was performed for other outcomes. Thirteen trials were included. Only one trial compared the immediate and delayed loading of single implant-supported overdenture. Seven trials used 2 implants, 1 trial used 3 implants while 4 trials used 4 implants. Meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in implant failure and MBL between immediate and conventional loading of 2- and 4-implant supported overdentures. Descriptive analysis indicated no difference in peri-implant tissue indices, implant stability, and quality of life outcomes between the 2 loading protocols. There may be no difference in implant failure and MBL with immediate loading or conventional loading of 2- and 4-implant supported mandibular overdentures. Literature review indicates that there may be no difference in peri-implant tissue indices, implant stability, and quality of life outcomes between the 2 loading protocols. The overall quality of evidence is moderate. Further, adequately powered RCTs are required to strengthen the evidence.
临床医生在治疗覆盖义齿患者时需要了解即刻负载和传统负载是否会产生相似的结果。本研究旨在对比较下颌覆盖义齿即刻负载和传统负载的研究进行系统的文献检索，无论植入物数量如何，并对种植体失败和边缘骨丧失（MBL）进行荟萃分析。对 PubMed、ScienceDirect、Ovoid、Springer 和 Google Scholar 数据库进行了随机对照试验（RCT）的文献检索，比较了下颌覆盖义齿的即刻负载与传统负载。主要结局是种植体失败，次要结局是边缘骨丧失（MBL）。对其他结局进行了描述性分析。共纳入 13 项试验。只有一项试验比较了单种植体支持覆盖义齿的即刻和延迟负载。7 项试验使用 2 个种植体，1 项试验使用 3 个种植体，4 项试验使用 4 个种植体。荟萃分析表明，2 个和 4 个种植体支持的覆盖义齿即刻负载和传统负载在种植体失败和 MBL 方面无统计学差异。描述性分析表明，两种负载方案之间在种植体周围组织指数、种植体稳定性和生活质量结局方面无差异。2 个和 4 个种植体支持的下颌覆盖义齿即刻负载或传统负载在种植体失败和 MBL 方面可能无差异。文献综述表明，两种负载方案之间在种植体周围组织指数、种植体稳定性和生活质量结局方面可能无差异。总体证据质量为中等。需要进一步进行充分的随机对照试验以加强证据。
