Jul 2026· Journal of Prosthodontics· 0 citations· 50 references
Medicine
TL;DR
Mandibular IODs do not appear to substantially increase maxillary RRR compared with conventional dentures, and attachment design and occlusal loading may have greater influence on maxillary RRR patterns than implant number or distribution, although the certainty of evidence is low to moderate.
Abstract
Purpose
This systematic review evaluated the effect of mandibular implant-supported prosthetic design, including implant number, distribution, and attachment system, on maxillary residual ridge resorption (RRR) in completely edentulous patients.
Methods
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2026. Clinical studies evaluating maxillary RRR in patients rehabilitated with mandibular implant-supported overdentures (IODs) were included. Because of heterogeneity in study designs, prosthetic protocols, and outcome assessment methods, the findings were synthesized qualitatively. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
Results
Eighteen studies involving 496 edentulous participants were included, comprising randomized controlled trials, prospective clinical studies, and retrospective investigations with 1-10 years of follow-up. Mandibular treatments included 1-IODs, 2-IODs, 4-IODs, and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Maxillary RRR was generally comparable or reduced with mandibular IODs compared to conventional complete dentures. Resilient non-splinting attachments, particularly O-ring/stud, ball, locator, and magnet systems, were generally associated with less maxillary RRR than rigid splinting designs such as bar-clip and telescopic attachments. Implant number and distribution had limited influence, whereas anterior maxillary bone loss generally exceeded posterior loss. The certainty of evidence was low to moderate.
Conclusions
Mandibular IODs do not appear to substantially increase maxillary RRR compared with conventional dentures. Attachment design and occlusal loading may have greater influence on maxillary RRR patterns than implant number or distribution, although the certainty of evidence is low to moderate. Further multicenter trials with standardized CBCT-based outcomes are needed.
PURPOSE
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of dental implants with a triangular neck, focusing on 1-year marginal bone loss (MBL) and implant survival rate.
METHODS
This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search of databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was completed on June 8, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective and prospective studies, and case series that studied ≥ 10 implants, reporting on triangular-neck implants, were included. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was used for RCTs, and the Joanna Briggs Institute case series checklist was used for nonrandomized studies. The results were summarized using a random-effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed to assess robustness. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to determine the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
The search provided 115 titles after removal of duplicates. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, five of which provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis. The pooled analysis demonstrated a 1-year mean MBL of 0.35 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.46; heterogeneity; I2 = 23.2%; p = 0.25) and an implant survival rate of 97.8% (95% CI: 95.4%-99.4%; I2 = 0.0%; p = 0.96).
CONCLUSIONS
Available single-arm evidence indicates that triangular-neck implants were associated with high implant survival rates and limited marginal bone level changes during the first year of follow-up. However, the current evidence does not permit conclusions regarding comparative clinical benefits relative to other implant designs.
Ziqi Xie, Sara Reda Sammour, Ryuji Shigemitsu et al.· International Journal of Imp...· 0 citations
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of digitally and conventionally fabricated removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. An electronic search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Clinical studies comparing clinical outcomes and/or PROMs of digitally and conventionally fabricated RPD frameworks, with no restrictions on publication year or language, were included. Studies involving other types of oral rehabilitation or those without full-text availability were excluded.
RESULTS
From 863 studies identified, 14 were included in this review. Clinical outcomes assessed included adaptation, periodontal health, masticatory efficiency, denture stomatitis, weight, success, and placement rates, adjustment time, stability, number of framework remakes, and components requiring adjustment. PROMs included patient satisfaction, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), and patient preference. No significant difference in rest adaptation was observed between conventional and digital workflows (p = 0.070). Some studies suggested that digitally fabricated RPD frameworks may be associated with reduced bone loss, improved masticatory efficiency, and fewer incidences of denture stomatitis. Regarding PROMs, the digital workflow resulted in higher patient satisfaction, whereas OHRQoL and patient preference were similar between techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
Digitally fabricated RPD frameworks showed satisfactory clinical outcomes and PROMs and may represent a viable alternative to conventional methods.
Lucas Cavalcante de Sousa, Maria Eduarda Lemos Avelino, A. F. Carreiro et al.· Journal of Prosthodontics· 0 citations
While DO provides the greatest vertical bone gain, the GBR techniques might be a more clinically practical option, however, future well-planned RCTs to identify effective vertical bone augmentation techniques are still warranted.
Background: Short dental implants (≤6 mm) are increasingly used for posterior rehabilitation in patients with limited alveolar bone height. This review examines their survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), peri-implantitis, and technical/prosthetic complications compared with standard-length implants. Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Search terms included 'short dental implants', 'posterior edentulism', 'survival rates', 'marginal bone loss', 'peri-implantitis', and 'bone augmentation'. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and prospective and retrospective clinical studies published between 2018 and 2024 were included. Studies were selected based on implant intrabony length of ≤6 mm, a minimum follow-up of 12 months, and reporting of at least one primary outcome. Results: Evidence from a meta-analysis of 16 RCTs (408 short implants; 475 standard-length implants) demonstrates statistically higher survival rates for longer implants (99.4% vs. 95.1%; 95% CI: 2–5%, p < 0.001), though no significant difference was found in early or late implant failure rates. MBL was marginally but non-significantly lower for short implants (0.23 mm vs. 0.27 mm). Peri-implantitis prevalence (0–6% vs. 0–13%) and technical/prosthetic complication rates were comparable between groups. Crown-to-implant ratios of 1.55–1.86 in short implants did not translate to elevated complication rates when prostheses were splinted. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 RCTs confirmed equivalent survival at all follow-up intervals without the need for bone augmentation. Conclusions: Short dental implants represent a valid, minimally invasive alternative to bone augmentation in appropriately selected patients. Optimal outcomes depend on modern nano-structured implant surfaces, adequate prosthetic splinting, bone quality assessment, and rigorous peri-implant maintenance. Further long-term RCTs with standardized peri-implantitis criteria are needed.
Malik Hina, Tausif Ahmed Shaikh, Ameena Abdussalam et al.· Saudi Journal of Oral and De...· 0 citations
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
During oral rehabilitation, clinicians manage various substrates including natural teeth and implants. Biomechanical differences might influence stress distribution within ceramic materials.
PURPOSE
This systematic review compared the frequency of failures and fracture-related complications of tooth- and implant-supported ceramic restorations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and LILACS databases to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The PICOS question included: Population-multiple or single-unit, monolithic or bilayered, ceramic restorations; Intervention-implant-supported restorations; Comparison-tooth-supported restorations; Outcome-number of failures and number of complications; Study design-clinical trials or observational studies. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the confidence of the cumulative evidence was evaluated with GRADEpro. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for lithium disilicate, alumina, and zirconia ceramics comparing the outcomes of failures, technical failures, and complications associated with repairable fractures.
RESULTS
The search yielded 2073 records. Of these, 38 studies were selected for full-text reading, and 25 were included in this review (17 quantitatively and 8 qualitatively analyzed). In all analyses, the heterogeneity among studies was low, and no significant differences were found between tooth- and implant-supported substrates. Risk of bias was mostly low, and confidence of evidence was considered low to moderate by GRADE assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
No significant differences were found in the frequency of failures, technical failures, or repairable fracture-related complications between ceramic restorations supported by teeth or implants, regardless of the ceramic material evaluated.
Camila da Silva Rodrigues, Manassés Tercio Vieira Grangeiro, Jatyr Pisani Proença et al.· The Journal of prosthetic de...· 0 citations
Background Removable orthodontic aligners are widely used due to their aesthetic appeal, removability, and perceived comfort. However, evidence regarding their potential adverse effects remains limited. Objective To identify and synthesize the adverse effects associated with removable orthodontic aligner therapy. Methods This systematic review with single-arm meta-analysis evaluated adverse effects related to removable orthodontic aligner therapy. Seven electronic databases (Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, Livivo, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources (ProQuest Dissertations and Google Scholar) were searched without language or date restrictions. Two calibrated reviewers independently selected studies. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, most outcomes were synthesized narratively; meta-analyses were conducted only for pain/discomfort, apical root resorption, and plaque. Results Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, including 10 randomized controlled trials, 6 non-randomized clinical studies, and 18 cohort studies. Randomized trials were predominantly at low risk of bias, whereas most non-randomized and cohort studies were at moderate to high risk. Pain and apical root resorption were the most frequently reported adverse effects. Pain peaked within 24 hours, decreased by day 3, and was minimal by 1 week. Apical root resorption was generally small, with a mean linear loss of −0.33 mm (95% CI −0.55 to −0.11) and a volumetric loss of −4.37 mm³ (95% CI −5.51 to −3.24). Findings on plaque at 3 months were inconclusive. Other reported outcomes included periodontal changes, enamel demineralization, white spot lesions, speech alterations, halitosis, open gingival embrasures, temporomandibular symptoms, and awake bruxism. Conclusion Short-term pain and minor apical root resorption appear to be the most frequently reported adverse effects of removable orthodontic aligners, although the certainty of evidence varies across outcomes. Speech alterations, discomfort, and white spot lesions have also been reported.
Cintia Ronchi Lemos, Marianella Aguilar Ventura Fadel, H. Polmann et al.· PLoS ONE· 0 citations
