International dental journal · 2026
Implant-Supported and Conventional Dentures: A Meta-Analysis in Older Adults.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Heboyan Artak, Kaur Kanwalpreet, Saini Ravinder S, Kanji Masroor Ahmed, Alarcón-Sánchez Mario Alberto, Mosaddad Seyed Ali, Fiorillo Luca, Flores-Fraile Javier
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Edentulism is highly prevalent among older adults, with approximately 30% of adults aged ≥60 years affected by complete tooth loss in at least one dental arch. Conventional complete dentures (CCDs) often provide suboptimal retention and stability, negatively impacting oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and masticatory performance. Implant-retained overdentures (IODs) have been suggested as a potential alternative to improve patient-reported and functional outcomes.
PURPOSE: Our goal was to assess the influence of IODs vs CCDs on masticatory effectiveness, denture satisfaction, and OHRQoL in edentulous older adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We explored randomized controlled studies comparing IODs to CCDs using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Two reviewers independently appraised study eligibility, data extraction, and risk of bias. We summarized the data using random-effects meta-analyses. We conducted a structured qualitative subgroup analysis to explore the clinically and methodologically relevant sources of variation between the trials.
RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs were included in this systematic review. IODs demonstrated more favourable OHRQoL outcomes than CCDs, particularly in the subscales related to oral function. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed across the pooled analyses (I² > 90%), and several outcomes, including denture satisfaction and masticatory performance, were synthesized narratively because of methodological and reporting variability among studies.
CONCLUSION: The evidence consistently shows that IODs are associated with improved patient-reported and functional outcomes compared with CCDs in edentulous older adults. There was some heterogeneity between the studies, which should be considered when interpreting the results. However, the overall evidence suggests that IODs are clinically effective in this patient population.
PURPOSE: Our goal was to assess the influence of IODs vs CCDs on masticatory effectiveness, denture satisfaction, and OHRQoL in edentulous older adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We explored randomized controlled studies comparing IODs to CCDs using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Two reviewers independently appraised study eligibility, data extraction, and risk of bias. We summarized the data using random-effects meta-analyses. We conducted a structured qualitative subgroup analysis to explore the clinically and methodologically relevant sources of variation between the trials.
RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs were included in this systematic review. IODs demonstrated more favourable OHRQoL outcomes than CCDs, particularly in the subscales related to oral function. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed across the pooled analyses (I² > 90%), and several outcomes, including denture satisfaction and masticatory performance, were synthesized narratively because of methodological and reporting variability among studies.
CONCLUSION: The evidence consistently shows that IODs are associated with improved patient-reported and functional outcomes compared with CCDs in edentulous older adults. There was some heterogeneity between the studies, which should be considered when interpreting the results. However, the overall evidence suggests that IODs are clinically effective in this patient population.