Review question
The aim of this review was to assess different attachments used for upper or lower jaw implant dentures with respect to their success, wear and tear, patient satisfaction, patient preference and cost.
Background
For adults with complete tooth loss, the modern approach is implant dentures with attachment systems connecting the implants to the undersurface of the dentures. It is important to do the review as the choice of the number of implants and the design of the attachments influences prosthesis success, the amount of wear and tear, patient satisfaction, preference and costs.
Study characteristics
Authors from Cochrane Oral Health carried out this review and the evidence is up to date to 24 January 2018. A total of six trials on adults with complete tooth loss were included with a total of 294 lower jaw dentures (anchored by one or more implants). The review looked at different attachment systems on the same implant systems. The six trials did not each evaluate the same attachment systems. There were no eligible trials with upper jaw implant dentures.
Key results
There is insufficient evidence to determine any significant differences between lower jaw implant denture attachment systems and an absence of evidence for upper jaw implant denture attachment systems. Further randomised controlled trials on people with complete tooth loss wearing dentures must pay specific attention to trial design using the same implant system and the same number of implants, but different attachment systems to determine their longevity and patient preferences.
Quality of the evidence
We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. In all the included trials there were relatively few participants and few events, and there were serious limitations in the trial designs with data missing or not all outcomes reported.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.