Abstract
Purpose: The Mcgill consensus states that there is now evidence that a two-implant overdenture should be the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible. The purpose of this study is to analyze published literature on clinical follow-up studies focusing on three attachments (bar, ball, magnet) of mandibular implant-retained overdentures.
Study selection: Two databases, PubMed and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina were searched to retrieve research papers on clinical follow-up studies focusing on attachments of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. Twenty-seven papers were selected from the database with the criteria, and they were reviewed. We mainly reviewed: 1) periodontal parameters (marginal bone loss, attachment loss, Periotest value, pocket depth, etc.), 2) mechanical parameters (retention force, maximum bite force, masticatory function), 3) maintenance (incident number to repair and adjustment, etc.), and 4) the patient's subjective satisfaction in each case.
Results: Patients' subjective with satisfaction implant-retained overdentures with attachments was significantly higher compared to that with conventional dentures without any attachment. The magnet- attachment group was inferior in retention force, incident number to repair and adjustment, and patient's subjective satisfaction. The bar- attachment group was inferior in mucosal incident. The ball- attachment group showed more successful results than the bar and magnet groups.
Conclusion: This review indicates that, the mandibular implant-retained overdenture is a more satisfactory treatment than conventional dentures for edentulous patients, and that each attachment had its advantages although the ball-attachment group showed more successful results.
