Bilateral balanced occlusion compared to other occlusal schemes in complete dentures: A systematic review.

No consensus has been reached regarding the best occlusal scheme for making complete dentures. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare bilateral balanced occlusion (BBO) with other occlusal schemes (canine guidance, lingualised occlusion and zero degree) in complete dentures. The schemes were compared in terms of quality of life/satisfaction and masticatory performance. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of studies published in or before October 2017 using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases. The search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The focused question was: "In conventional complete denture, is BBO better than lingualised occlusion, canine guidance and zero degree in terms of quality of life, patient satisfaction and masticatory performance/muscle activity?" Seventeen studies were selected for analysis. In total, there were 492 patients with a mean age of 64.78 years and a mean follow-up duration of 2.96 months (range: 1-6 months). All studies compared BBO with the other occlusal schemes. Eleven studies evaluated the influence of the occlusal scheme designs on quality of life and satisfaction, and 8 studies evaluated masticatory performance and muscle activity between BBO and the other occlusion schemes. The present systematic review indicated that BBO does not confer better quality of life/satisfaction or masticatory performance and muscle activity. Thus, lingualised occlusion can be considered a predictable occlusal scheme for complete dentures in terms of quality of life/satisfaction and masticatory performance, while canine guidance can be used to reduce muscular activity.

Comparison between flapless and open-flap implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

No consensus has been reached regarding the influence of the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques on the placement of dental implants. This systematic review compared the effects of flapless implant placement and implant placement with elevation of the mucoperiosteal flap in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival rate and complications rates. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42017071475. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until December 2017. The search identified 559 references. After a detailed review, 24 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1025 patients who had received a total of 1873 dental implants were included. There were no significant differences between the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques in terms of implant survival rates (P=0.34; risk ratio (RR): 1.36; confidence interval (CI): 0.72-2.56), marginal bone loss (P=0.23; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.52-0.13), or complication rates (P=0.67; RR: 1.10; CI: 0.70-1.73). The current meta-analysis showed that the implant survival rate, marginal bone levels, and complications of flapless surgery were similar to those of open-flap surgery over a mean follow-up period of 21.62 months.