Abstract

Background Immediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing demand on immediate aesthetics and function. However, there is still a scarcity of meta-analytical evidence on the efficacy of immediate loading compared to delayed loading in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants between immediate and delayed loading of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies quantitatively comparing the MBL around implants between immediate loading protocol (ILP) and delayed loading protocol (DLP) of unsplinted mandibular overdentures were included. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on December 02, 2020. "Grey" literature was also searched. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the pooled MBL of two different loading protocols of unsplinted mandibular overdentures through weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The subgroup analysis was performed between different attachment types (i.e. Locator attachment vs. ball anchor). The risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Egger's test. Results Of 328 records, five RCTs and two cohort studies were included and evaluated, which totally contained 191 participants with 400 implants. The MBL of ILP group showed no significant difference with that of DLP group (WMD 0.04, CI - 0.13 to 0.21, P > .05). The subgroup analysis revealed similar results with Locator attachments or ball anchors (P > .05). Apart from one RCT (20%) with a high risk of bias, four RCTs (80%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Two prospective cohort studies were proved with acceptable quality. Seven included studies have reported 5.03% implant failure rate (10 of 199 implants) in ILP group and 1.00% failure rate (2 of 201 implants) in DLP group in total. Conclusions For unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures, the MBL around implants after ILP seems comparable to that of implants after DLP. Immediate loading may be a promising alternative to delayed loading for the management of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020159124.

Highlights

  • Review question / Objective: How do ILP and delayed loading protocol (DLP) influence the MBL around implants in the unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures.Condition being studied: Immediate loading protocol (ILP) has recently been introduced in edentulous management with implantretained overdentures

  • Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interests

  • The treatment efficacy of this new protocol compared to the delayed loading protocol (DLP) is still to be evaluated

Read more

Summary

INPLASY PROTOCOL

To cite: Liu et al Effects of immediate and delayed loading protocols on marginal bone loss around implants in unsplinted mandibular implantretained overdentures: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interests. Effects of immediate and delayed loading protocols on marginal bone loss around implants in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review question / Objective: How do ILP and DLP influence the MBL around implants in the unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. Condition being studied: Immediate loading protocol (ILP) has recently been introduced in edentulous management with implant-retained overdentures. Information sources: Online electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Library). Grey literature, including OpenSIGLE, NTIS, clinicaltrials.gov, the ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts, and Thesis database. INPLASY registration number: This protocol was registered with the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) on 14 April 2020 and was last updated on 14 April 2020 (registration number INPLASY202040079)

INTRODUCTION
Findings
METHODS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call