Unsplinted Attachments and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in 2-Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review. (24th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Patil, Pravinkumar G.; Seow, Liang Lin; Kweh, Ting Jing; Nimbalkar, Smita
• Other Names: Corbella Stefano Academic Editor.
• Is Part Of: International journal of dentistry. Volume 2022(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-05-24
• Subjects: Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 617.6
• DOI: 10.1155/2022/5955847
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1687-8728

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction . The purpose of this review is to compare randomized clinical trials evaluating the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using different unsplinted attachment systems in 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures (2IRMODs). A focus question (as per PICOS) was set as follows: does one particular unsplinted attachment system (I) compared with another (C) result in better patient-reported outcomes (O) in two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures (P) using randomized controlled trials (S)? Materials and Methods . A literature search was conducted in the PubMed MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases between November 2010 and October 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 2IRMOD using unsplinted attachment systems measuring patient-centered outcomes were selected. A total of 171 studies were identified in initial search, and 27 studies were shortlisted for full-text evaluation. A total of 5 studies were included for a systematic review. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0). Meta-analysis could not be performed as different studies evaluated different patient-reported outcomes, namely, satisfaction, quality of life, complications, preferences, or combinations of these. Results . A total of 23 patients received low-profile (self-aligning) attachments (in 2 studies), 69 patients received standard ball attachments (in 5 studies), 25 patients received telescopic (or conus) attachments (in 2 studies), and 20 patients received mini-ball attachments (in 1 study). Two studies compared ball attachments and low-profile attachments and revealed similar satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). Two studies compared ball attachments with telescopic attachments and revealed less patient satisfaction in telescopic attachments. A single study compared mini-ball attachments with standard ball attachments and showed no difference in patient-reported outcomes. Three studies were found to have a low risk of bias, and the remaining two studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusions . The standard ball, mini-ball, and low-profile attachments have no influence on PROMs in the normal interarch space. Inconclusive results were found in studies that evaluated PROMs using ball attachments versus telescopic attachments.