Bar versus ball attachments for implant-supported overdentures in complete edentulism: A systematic review

Abstract

Background: Implant-supported overdenture is one of the most predictable treatment options used in complete edentulism. However, differences have been reported between bar and ball attachments used to retain overdentures in terms of patient satisfaction and prosthesis retention.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of bar and ball attachments for conventionally loaded implant-supported overdentures in completely edentulous patients to improve patient satisfaction and prosthesis retention.

Materials and methods: We conducted the review according to the Cochrane methods and following MECIR standards. We searched Cochrane Oral Health Group Trial register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and the WHO ICTRP (March 31, 2017). Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio or mean differences, together with their 95% confidence intervals.

Results: We included 10 trials (465 participants). After 5 y, one trial reported higher patient satisfaction when bar attachment was used (MD 1.30, 95% CI 0.20-2.40), and reported no difference between both systems in prosthesis retention (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.90 to 0.10). Two trials reported no implant failures after 1 and 5 y in both attachments. Downgrading of evidence was based on the unclear risk of bias of included studies and the wide CI crossing the line of no effect.

Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support bar or ball attachment to be used with implant-supported overdentures in completely edentulous patients to improve patient satisfaction and prosthesis retention (PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014594).

Keywords: ball attachments; bar attachments; complete edentulism; implant overdentures; systematic review.