Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws.

BACKGROUND: Implant overdentures are one of the most common treatment options used to rehabilitate edentulous patients. Attachment systems are used to anchor the overdentures to implants. The plethora of attachment systems available dictates a need for clinicians to understand their prosthodontic and patient-related outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare different attachment systems for maxillary and mandibular implant overdentures by assessing prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient preference, patient satisfaction/quality of life and costs. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 January 2018); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 24 January 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 January 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials on 24 January 2018. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over trials on maxillary or mandibular implant overdentures with different attachment systems with at least 1 year follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors extracted data independently and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. Several corresponding authors were subsequently contacted to obtain missing information. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine the outcomes with risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence and create 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six RCTs with a total of 294 mandibular overdentures (including one cross-over trial). No trials on maxillary overdentures were eligible. Due to the poor reporting of the outcomes across the included trials, only limited analyses between mandibular overdenture attachment systems were possible.Comparing ball and bar attachments, upon pooling the data regarding short-term prosthodontic success, we identified substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 97%) with inconsistency in the direction of effect, which was unexplained by clinical or methodological differences between the studies, and accordingly we did not perform meta-analyses for this outcome. Short-term re-treatment (repair of attachment system) was higher with ball attachments (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.68 to 5.75; 130 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence), and there was no difference between both attachment systems in short-term re-treatment (replacement of attachment system) (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.71; 130 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in short-term prosthodontic success when ball attachments are compared with bar attachments.Comparing ball and magnet attachments, there was no difference between them in medium-term prosthodontic success (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or in medium-term re-treatment (repair of attachment system) (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 4.72; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). However, after 5 years, prosthodontic maintenance costs were higher when magnet attachments were used (MD -247.37 EUR, 95% CI -346.32 to -148.42; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in medium-term prosthodontic success when ball attachments are compared with magnet attachments.One trial provided data for ball versus telescopic attachments and reported no difference in prosthodontic maintenance between the two systems in short-term patrix replacement (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 41.96; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), matrix activation (RR 11.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 177.72; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), matrix replacement (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.31; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or in relining of the implant overdenture (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.81 to 6.76; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in short-term prosthodontic maintenance when ball attachments are compared with telescopic attachments.In the only cross-over trial included, patient preference between different attachment systems was assessed after only 3 months and not for the entire trial period of 10 years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For mandibular overdentures, there is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient satisfaction, patient preference or costs. In the short term, there is some evidence that is insufficient to show a difference and where there was no evidence was reported. It was not possible to determine any preferred attachment system for mandibular overdentures.For maxillary overdentures, there is no evidence (with no trials identified) to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient satisfaction, patient preference or costs.Further RCTs on edentulous cohorts must pay attention to trial design specifically using the same number of implants of the same implant system, but with different attachment systems clearly identified in control and test groups. Trials should also determine the longevity of different attachment systems and patient preferences. Trials on the current array of computer-aided designed/computer-assisted manufactured (CAD/CAM) bar attachment systems are encouraged.

Maxillary Three-Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 10-Year Prosthodontic Outcomes.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the 10-year prosthodontic outcomes with splinted and unsplinted designs for maxillary overdentures on three implants opposing mandibular two-implant overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using two similar implant systems, 40 edentulous participants with existing mandibular two-implant overdentures were randomly allocated to two prosthodontic treatment groups (splinted design with bar units; unsplinted design with ball attachments). Participants had three narrow-diameter implants placed in their edentulous maxillae using a one-stage surgical procedure, and they were conventionally loaded with overdentures. Prosthodontic maintenance events were documented at 1-, 2-, 5-, 7-, and 10-year recalls. RESULTS: Progressive attrition of the cohort resulted in 36 participants being seen for the 1-year recall, 31 participants for the 2-year recall, 30 participants for the 3-year recall, 28 participants for the 5-year recall, 26 participants for the 7-year recall, and 23 participants (nearly 60%) for the 10-year recall. Data showed no significant differences in prosthodontic maintenance or success associated with patrices, matrices, or other aspects of the overdentures using the different attachment systems and designs. CONCLUSION: Maxillary three-implant overdentures are a viable treatment option for edentulous patients wearing opposing mandibular two-implant overdentures. There were no differences in prosthodontic maintenance and success between the splinted (bar) and unsplinted (ball) designs.