Department of Prosthodontics, the University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, IA.
Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, the University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, IA.
J Prosthodont. 2022 Oct;31(8):655-662. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13498. Epub 2022 Mar 5.
To compare the outcomes of prosthodontic treatment for subjects wearing a complete maxillary denture opposing a root-supported mandibular overdenture (RSO) or an implant-supported mandibular overdenture (ISO).
A literature search was performed in seven electronic databases: MEDLINE via PubMed interface, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, Web of Science, and AgeLine. The search terms were developed by the primary investigators and the health sciences librarian, who then started with PubMed and adapted the original search strategy for the other databases. Included articles were those that compared the outcomes for mandibular RSOs and those with ISOs, for persons wearing a maxillary complete denture.
Seven articles were included in the review. There were limitations in this review because of small sample sizes, short study durations, and different methodologies. Also, no comparative studies were identified for clinically important outcomes, such as survival rates of abutments, prosthodontics/maintenance problems, and longitudinal cost of care. For prosthodontic complications, patient satisfaction, and ability to clean, no differences were reported. For oral tactile sensibility, RSOs presented significantly improved sensibility, whereas ISOs had higher maximum bite force capability, but the difference was not statistically significant, except when subjects had a cross-bite or a lingualized occlusion.
The results of this scoping review were not conclusive, except for maximum bite force, where ISOs seem to perform better than RSOs by the measured criteria. ISOs had higher survival rates than RSOs, and required less maintenance, but were more expensive. It was disappointing to find so few studies comparing these clinical treatment modalities, which suggests that either treatment may be clinically acceptable and depends upon a shared decision between patients and their dentists.
比较佩戴全上颌义齿对颌的根支持下颌覆盖义齿（RSO）和种植体支持下颌覆盖义齿（ISO）的修复治疗效果。
在七个电子数据库中进行文献检索：PubMed 接口下的 MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆、护理学及相关健康科学文献累积索引、Scopus、Web of Science 和 AgeLine。主要研究人员和健康科学图书馆员共同制定检索词，然后从 PubMed 开始，并根据原始检索策略调整其他数据库的检索策略。纳入的文章是比较佩戴上颌全口义齿的患者下颌 RSO 和 ISO 治疗效果的文章。
综述共纳入 7 篇文章。由于样本量小、研究持续时间短和方法学不同，本综述存在局限性。此外，对于临床重要结局，如基台的存活率、修复体/维护问题以及护理的纵向成本，没有发现比较研究。对于修复并发症、患者满意度和清洁能力，没有报告差异。对于口腔触觉敏感性，RSO 表现出显著改善的敏感性，而 ISO 具有更高的最大咬合力能力，但差异没有统计学意义，除了患者有交叉咬合或舌侧咬合的情况。
除了最大咬合力外，本范围综述的结果没有定论，ISO 似乎比 RSO 更符合测量标准。ISO 的存活率高于 RSO，维护需求较少，但成本更高。令人失望的是，比较这些临床治疗方法的研究如此之少，这表明这两种治疗方法在临床上都可以接受，取决于患者及其牙医之间的共同决策。
