Long-term assessment of the periodontal health of removable partial denture wearers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The long-term effects of wearing removable partial dentures (RPDs) remain unclear. PURPOSE: This systematic review addressed the question "Is the long-term use of RPDs deleterious to the remaining teeth?" MATERIAL AND METHODS: This review was guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Six databases and nonpeer-reviewed literature were searched in April 2024 without language or follow-up restrictions. Only clinical studies evaluating RPD long-term use were included. The risk of bias and evidence certainty were assessed (RoB 2.0; ROBINS-I; GRADE), and meta-analyses were conducted for survival rate and periodontal health (α=.05). RESULTS: A total of 5577 records were identified, and 46 studies covering data from 4359 prostheses and 4072 participants (mean age 60 ±5.2 years) were included. A low to moderate risk of bias was found. A 5-year survival rate of 95.1% (ER=0.951; 95% CI=0.900 to 0.977; P<.001) and 91.7% (ER=0.917; 95% CI=0.870 to 0.948; P<.001) was found for cast-clasp RPD and RPDs retained by telescopic crowns respectively, with no difference between them (P=.71). Abutments (OR=1.99, 95% CI=1.32 to 3.01; P=.001) and nonvital teeth (HR=2.961; 95% CI=2.023 to 4.335; P<.001) presented a higher risk of extraction after 5 years. Tooth mobility (P=.98) and probing depth (P=.50) remained unchanged, while the gingival index increased (MD=0.477 (95% CI=0.12 to 0.83; P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: A high survival rate was found for both cast-clasp RPD and RPDs retained by telescopic crowns, with few periodontal changes to the remaining teeth.

Four-year assessment of masticatory function in mandibular overdenture wearers: A randomised clinical trial comparing two to four implants to retain the prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the mid- to long-term masticatory capacity of mandibular overdenture (IOD) wearers, particularly regarding the use of posterior implants to retention. OBJECTIVES: To periodically evaluate mastication of IOD wearers, comparing the effectiveness of two to four implants to retain the prosthesis. METHODS: In a randomised controlled clinical trial, 20 complete edentulous patients (14 women), aged 51-84 years (mean age 69.1 ± 9.6), received new bimaxillary complete dentures (CD). After adaptation, baseline measurements of masticatory performance (X50) and swallowing threshold were conducted using the sieving method. Patients were then randomly assigned to groups: control (two intra-foraminal regular implants) and experimental (two intra-foraminal regular implants and two extra-short posterior implants) (n = 10 each). After 4 months, implants were splinted, and a new mandibular IOD was fabricated with bar/clip retention. Mastication was reassessed after 6, 12, and 48 months, and data analysed with repeated measures ANOVA and Sidak's post hoc (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Despite a loss of two patients per group, masticatory performance significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation (p = .031) in both groups (p = .670). A second improvement was observed after 6 months (p = .027), with no subsequent changes (p > .05). Swallowing threshold improvements were noted with IOD, and no discernible differences between groups were observed (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Masticatory function significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation, with the number of implants demonstrating minimal influence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was not registered in a public database, as mandated. It is important to note that the recommendation for registration was initiated in 2017 by the Committee of Medical Journal Editors, while patient inclusion in the research took place in 2016. Given that the data presented in this manuscript cover a follow-up period of up to 4 years post-surgical intervention, delayed registration was not feasible.

Narrow-Diameter Implants for Partial Fixed and Removable Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To answer the following focus question: Are narrow-diameter implants feasible to support fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and partial removable dental prostheses (PRDPs)? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review followed the PRISMA statement and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020153729). Six databases and the gray literature were searched through October 2021 without language, publication time, or follow-up restrictions. The main outcomes were survival, success, and marginal bone loss (MBL). Risk of bias was assessed for each study design, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed (α = .05). RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and 3 were included in the meta-analyses. In total, 1,624 NDIs and 339 standard-diameter implants (SDIs) were placed in 1,060 patients. Follow-up varied from 1 to 10 years, and 17 failures (implant loss) were recorded. No differences in survival rate for FDPs supported by NDIs vs SDIs were found (odds ratio [OR] = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.18 to 1.92, P = .38). However, Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluating only NDI performance revealed a higher survival rate of NDIs ≥ 3.3-mm diameter (P = .002), placed with delayed loading (P = .024), and placed in the maxilla (P = .014). FDPs supported by NDIs vs SDIs presented similar success rates (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.41 to 5.34, P = .55); however, MBL was lower in the NDI group (mean difference = -0.23 mm, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.06, P = .01). Insufficient data regarding PRDPs were available. CONCLUSION: Despite the limited studies available, FDPs supported by NDIs presented survival and success rates comparable to those supported by SDIs, with slightly lower MBL. For PRDPs, strong conclusions were not possible.

Clinical performance of polymer frameworks in dental prostheses: A systematic review.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: High-performance polymers including polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) have been used as substitutes for metal frameworks in dental prostheses. However, the clinical performance of polymer-based frameworks is still uncertain. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of PEEK and PEKK with that of metal frameworks for different dental prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Six databases and non-peer-reviewed literature (without language or follow-up restrictions) were searched for studies conducted before February 2022. Only clinical studies, either randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized clinical trials (N-RCTs), comparing the clinical performance of polymer and metal frameworks were included. The risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed with the RoB 2.0, ROBINS-I, and GRADE. Biologic (plaque and gingival indices, probing depth, bleeding scores, implant stability quotient, marginal bone loss) and mechanical outcomes (ridge base relation, prosthetic marginal gap, and fracture) were assessed. RESULTS: Only 9 studies (7 RCTs and 2 N-RCTs) were included, all with moderate to serious risk of bias and low to very low certainty of evidence. No meta-analysis was possible, but qualitative analysis revealed lower plaque and gingival indices, probing depth, and marginal bone loss, with higher survival rates for implant-supported fixed prostheses and overdentures fabricated with PEEK than for metal frameworks. No significant differences were found between groups for removable partial dentures. The marginal fit of PEEK frameworks was also better for single crowns. Three fractures were reported in the 3 PEKK fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers. CONCLUSIONS: PEEK and PEKK seem to be promising materials for dental prostheses, with acceptable response from the periodontal tissue. However, further well-designed studies are necessary to better understand their clinical and long-term limitations.

Activation and installation of orthodontic appliances temporarily impairs mastication.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the masticatory (masticatory performance, bite force, swallowing threshold, muscle activity, and questionnaires) and nutritional (nutrient intake) impacts of the activation and/or installation of different orthodontic appliances (fixed labial, lingual appliances, and clear aligners). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six electronic databases and gray literature were searched (up to May 2021) for relevant studies evaluating mastication and nutrition after activation/installation of orthodontic appliances. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020199510). The risk of bias (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I) and evidence quality Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 4226 recorded and screened, 15 studies were finally included. Masticatory performance (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 1.069; 95% coefficient interval [CI]: 0.619 to 1.518) and bite force (SMD: -2.542; 95% CI: -4.867 to -0.217) reduced in the first 24 to 48 hours of fixed labial appliance installation/activation, but they were both normalized after 30 days (P > .05). The swallowing threshold remained constant (P > .05). Nutritional intake was rarely reported but showed copper (P = .002) and manganese (P = .016) reductions, with higher calorie and fat intake (P < .05). Lingual appliances impacted chewing more than labial, and clear aligner wearers reported fewer chewing problems (P < .001). Low to very low levels of evidence were found. CONCLUSIONS: Based on low to very low levels of evidence, mastication was reduced during the first 24 to 48 hours of fixed labial appliance activation/installation, but it was transitory (up to 30 days). Due to insufficient data, the nutritional impact of orthodontic appliances was not conclusive.

Effectiveness of different anesthetic methods for mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of anesthetic methods for mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, comparing to the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) by meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies were identified from Cochrane Library, Embase, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to May 2021. Randomized clinical trials comparing the anesthetic success rate of IANB and any other alternative anesthetic method were included. The quality of the selected studies was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effect models were performed to find the pooled estimates of risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were selected, which included fourteen anesthetic methods. Two studies were classified as high risk of bias, five as uncertain risk and fifteen as low risk. Vazirani-Akinosi nerve block (VANB) [RR = 1.27; p = 0.007; 95% CI, 1.07-1.52; I2 = 0%] and intraosseous injection (IOI) [RR = 1.48; p = 0.04; 95% CI, 1.02-2.15; I2 = 46%] had superior effectiveness compared to IANB, with low certainty of evidence, as well as buccal infiltrations associated with IANB (BI + IANB) [RR = 1.84; p = 0.004; 95% CI, 1.22-2.79; I2 = 52%], with very low certainty. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that buccal infiltrations associated with IANB, VANB, and IOI are more effective than IANB at anesthetizing posterior mandibular teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Alternative primary methods of anesthesia might be indicated for mandibular posterior teeth presenting symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Do implant-supported prostheses affect bioavailability of nutrients of complete and partially edentulous patients? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Debate still exists about the impact of dental implant-supported prostheses on nutritional status of partially and complete edentulous patients. This review aims to answer the focused question: "Do complete and partial edentulous patients, using implant-supported prostheses, present better nutritional and masticatory functions when compared to those using conventional rehabilitations?". A possible cause-effect relationship between masticatory improvements and nutritional gain was also evaluated. METHODS: Literature search included 6 databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library - CENTRAL), grey literature (Google Scholar, Proquest Dissertations and Thesis and Open Grey databases) and manual search (last update June 2020), without language, publication time and follow-up restrictions. We included only studies evaluating both masticatory and nutritional outcomes. The PICO question comprised complete and partial edentulous patients (Population), submitted to implant-supported prostheses (Intervention), in comparison to conventional dental prosthetic rehabilitation, evaluating masticatory function and nutrition parameters (outcomes). Risk of bias was assessed by using Cochrane Collaboration's tool (randomized clinical trials), Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist (paired clinical trials), and Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument" (JBI - MAStARI) critical appraisal tools (cohort studies). All meta-analyses were conducted at 5% level of significance. This report followed the PRISMA guidelines. (Review registration PROSPERO - CRD42019135744). RESULTS: We identified 1199 articles while searching databases. Fourteen articles met eligibility criteria, including 817 prostheses installed in 660 patients (mean age = 66.8 years-old). Patients wearing implant overdentures (IOD) presented better masticatory function in comparison to conventional complete denture (CD) wearers (p < 0.05). However, bioavailability of several nutrients remained within the same range, except for serum folate that was lower in IOD patients after 6 (mean difference 3.51 nmol/L; p = 0.01) and 12 months of rehabilitation (mean difference 3.69 nmol/L; p = 0.003). When comparing the effects of CD and IOD rehabilitations along time (for the same patient), serum albumin and vitamin B12 levels also decreased for both groups after 12 months-follow-up, but still within the reference range. The additional retention of the implants did not interfere in body weight, but reduced the risk of malnutrition (using the Mini Nutritional Assessment). Implant-supported partial prostheses also improved mastication in comparison to the conventional ones, increasing short-term daily intake of carbohydrates, protein, calcium, fiber, and iron, whereas decreasing the consumption of cholesterol. However, no long-term changes on bioavailability of most nutrients were observed, expect for a slight increase in ferritin and cholinesterase, and a small reduction in folate and Vitamin A. CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates significant masticatory improvements for dental fixed implant-supported prostheses in comparison to conventional removable prostheses. However, bioavailability remained stable for most of the nutrients, especially for complete edentulous patients. These results indicate the importance of a multidisciplinary approach during oral rehabilitation (nutrient specialist), in order to enhance food choices and promote health benefits to the patients.