RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the peri-implant clinicoradiographic status and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) levels in peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) samples collected from individuals with cement-retained and crew-retained implants. METHODS: In this observational study, participants with cement-retained and screw-retained implants were enrolled. A questionnaire was utilized to gather demographic information and assess the educational background of the participants. Peri-implant modified plaque and bleeding indices, probing depth, and crestal bone loss were measured. Subsequently, PISF samples were collected, and corresponding volumes were recorded. Commercial kits employing enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were employed to quantify PGE2 levels. The sample size was determined, and group comparisons were conducted using the Student t test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. Logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the correlation between PGE2 levels and clinicoradiographic and demographics. The predefined level of significance was established at P < .05. RESULTS: Sixty-seven participants, consisting of 33 with cement-retained implants and 34 with screw-retained implants, were included in the study. The mean ages for individuals with cement and screw-retained implants were 54.2 ± 8.7 and 58.7 ± 7.4 years, respectively. The majority of participants had completed university-level education. Reportedly, 87.9% and 82.4% of individuals with cement and screw-retained implants, respectively brushed teeth twice daily. No significant differences were observed in clinicoradiographic parameters, PGE2 volume, and levels between cement-retained and screw-retained implants. There was no correlation between PGE2 levels and peri-implant clinicoradiographic parameters among individuals with either cement-retained or screw-retained implants. CONCLUSIONS: Cement-retained and screw-retained implants exhibit a consistent peri-implant clinicoradiographic status, accompanied by stable levels of PGE2 in PISF provided oral hygiene maintenance regimens are stringently followed.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the efficacy of mini dental implants (MDIs) and standard-diameter implants (SDIs) in retaining mandibular overdentures (MO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The focused question was "Is there a difference in the mechanical stability between MDIs and SDIs in retaining MO?" Indexed databases were searched up to and including November 2023 using different keywords. Boolean operators were used during the search. The literature was searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The PICO characteristics were: patients (P) = individuals with complete mandibular dentures requiring dental implants; Intervention (I) = placement of MDIs under mandibular dentures; Control (C) = placement of SDIs under mandibular dentures; Outcome (O) = comparison of stability between MDIs and SDIs in supporting mandibular dentures. Only RCTs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. The numbers of participants ranged between 45 and 120 edentulous individuals wearing complete mandibular dentures. The mean age of patients ranged between 59.5 ± 8.5 and 68.3 ± 8.5 years. The number of MDIs and SDIs ranged between 22 and 152 and 10 and 80 implants, respectively. The follow-up duration ranged between one week and 12 months. Three RCTs reported an improvement in the quality of life (QoL) of all patients after stabilisation of mandibular dentures using MDIs or SDIs. In one RCT, peri-implant soft tissue profiles were comparable between MDIs and SDIs at the 1-year follow-up. The implant survival rate was reported in two RCTs, which were from 89% to 98% and 99% to 100% for MDIs and SDIs, respectively. All RCTs had a low RoB. CONCLUSION: Mini dental implants represent a viable alternative to traditional standard-diameter implants when seeking optimal retention for mandibular overdentures.