International journal of implant dentistry · 2025
Single versus two implant-supported mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of implant survival and prosthetic complications.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
Koyama Ryo, Shiratsuchi Hiroshi, Hasuike Akira, Ohyama Tetsuo, Tamagawa Takaaki, Furukawa Akihiko, Namaki Shunsuke, Yonenaga Kazumichi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluated the implant survival rate and prosthetic complications of single implant-supported mandibular overdentures (1-IOD) and compared them with those of traditionally recommended two implant-supported mandibular overdentures (2-IOD).
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used as a reference for reporting this systematic review. The study protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD420250644169). This review included 17 randomized controlled trials that compared 1-IOD and 2-IOD, with a follow-up period of at least 12 months after denture placement. The assessed outcomes included implant survival rate, denture fractures, denture relining, O-ring replacement, and metal housing reattachment. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis revealed no difference in implant survival rates between the 1- and 2-IOD groups over a 5-year period. In the subgroup analysis, overdenture fractures, denture remakes, and metal housing reattachments were more frequently observed in the 1-IOD group, whereas no statistically significant differences were found in the need for relining or O-ring replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: Although 1-IOD may be a less invasive alternative to 2-IOD, careful consideration is necessary because of its increased incidence of prosthetic complications.
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used as a reference for reporting this systematic review. The study protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD420250644169). This review included 17 randomized controlled trials that compared 1-IOD and 2-IOD, with a follow-up period of at least 12 months after denture placement. The assessed outcomes included implant survival rate, denture fractures, denture relining, O-ring replacement, and metal housing reattachment. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis revealed no difference in implant survival rates between the 1- and 2-IOD groups over a 5-year period. In the subgroup analysis, overdenture fractures, denture remakes, and metal housing reattachments were more frequently observed in the 1-IOD group, whereas no statistically significant differences were found in the need for relining or O-ring replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: Although 1-IOD may be a less invasive alternative to 2-IOD, careful consideration is necessary because of its increased incidence of prosthetic complications.