Unsplinted Attachment Systems and Peri-implant Outcomes in Two-implant-retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this review is to compare randomized clinical trials evaluating the peri-implant tissue outcomes using different unsplinted attachment systems in two implant-retained mandibular overdentures.

Background: Literature lacks information on various unsplinted attachment systems and their effect on peri-implant tissue health. A focus question (as per PICOS) was set as follows: Does one particular unsplinted attachment system (I) compared with another (C) results in better peri-implant outcomes (O) in two implant-retained mandibular overdentures (P) using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (S)? The literature search was conducted in the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases between January 2011 and December 2021. The keywords used were "denture, overlay," "denture," "overlay" AND "dental prosthesis, implant supported," "dental implants," "dental implant abutment design" AND "jaw, edentulous," "mouth, edentulous" AND "mandible." Only RCTs on two implant-retained mandibular overdentures using unsplinted attachment systems measuring peri-implant tissue outcomes with minimum 1-year follow-up were selected. In total, 224 studies were identified in initial search, and 25 were shortlisted for full-text evaluation. Four studies were included for systematic review upon considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0).

Review results: A total of 41 patients received ball attachments (in 3 studies), 36 patients received low-profile attachments (in 3 studies), 16 patients received magnet attachments (in 1 study), and 13 patients received telescopic attachments (in 1 study). All four studies used standard sized implants, however, differed in implant manufacturers. Two studies which compared ball attachments low-profile attachments revealed-similar peri-implant tissue health parameters but differed in crestal bone-level changes. One study compared ball with telescopic attachments and revealed similar results in crestal bone-level changes and all four peri-implant tissue health parameters. Single study compared magnets with low-profile attachments and shown lesser bone loss with magnet attachments. Single study was judged to have low risk of bias, single with some concerns, and remaining two to have high risk of bias.

Conclusion: Gingival index and bleeding index of the patients were not influenced by any of the unsplinted overdenture attachment (stud, magnet, telescopic) system. Inconclusive results found among the studies evaluated comparing crestal bone loss and plaque index.

Clinical significance: This review manuscript has simplified comparative analysis of different unsplinted attachment systems used in two implant mandibular overdentures to help clinicians choose correct system in such situation.

Keywords: Edentulism; Geriatric dentistry; Implant dentistry Mandibular overdenture..