Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws

Background: Implant overdentures are one of the most common treatment options used to rehabilitate edentulous patients. Attachment systems are used to anchor the overdentures to implants. The plethora of attachment systems available dictates a need for clinicians to understand their prosthodontic and patient-related outcomes. Objectives: To compare different attachment systems for maxillary and mandibular implant overdentures by assessing prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient preference, patient satisfaction/quality of life and costs. Search methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 January 2018); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 24 January 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 January 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials on 24 January 2018. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over trials on maxillary or mandibular implant overdentures with different attachment systems with at least 1 year follow-up. Data collection and analysis: Four review authors extracted data independently and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. Several corresponding authors were subsequently contacted to obtain missing information. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine the outcomes with risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence and create 'Summary of findings' tables. Main results: We identified six RCTs with a total of 294 mandibular overdentures (including one cross-over trial). No trials on maxillary overdentures were eligible. Due to the poor reporting of the outcomes across the included trials, only limited analyses between mandibular overdenture attachment systems were possible. Comparing ball and bar attachments, upon pooling the data regarding short-term prosthodontic success, we identified substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 97%) with inconsistency in the direction of effect, which was unexplained by clinical or methodological differences between the studies, and accordingly we did not perform meta-analyses for this outcome. Short-term re-treatment (repair of attachment system) was higher with ball attachments (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.68 to 5.75; 130 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence), and there was no difference between both attachment systems in short-term re-treatment (replacement of attachment system) (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.71; 130 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in short-term prosthodontic success when ball attachments are compared with bar attachments. Comparing ball and magnet attachments, there was no difference between them in medium-term prosthodontic success (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or in medium-term re-treatment (repair of attachment system) (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 4.72; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). However, after 5 years, prosthodontic maintenance costs were higher when magnet attachments were used (MD -247.37 EUR, 95% CI -346.32 to -148.42; 69 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in medium-term prosthodontic success when ball attachments are compared with magnet attachments. One trial provided data for ball versus telescopic attachments and reported no difference in prosthodontic maintenance between the two systems in short-term patrix replacement (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 41.96; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), matrix activation (RR 11.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 177.72; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), matrix replacement (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.31; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or in relining of the implant overdenture (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.81 to 6.76; 22 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in short-term prosthodontic maintenance when ball attachments are compared with telescopic attachments. In the only cross-over trial included, patient preference between different attachment systems was assessed after only 3 months and not for the entire trial period of 10 years. Authors' conclusions: For mandibular overdentures, there is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient satisfaction, patient preference or costs. In the short term, there is some evidence that is insufficient to show a difference and where there was no evidence was reported. It was not possible to determine any preferred attachment system for mandibular overdentures. For maxillary overdentures, there is no evidence (with no trials identified) to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, prosthodontic maintenance, patient satisfaction, patient preference or costs. Further RCTs on edentulous cohorts must pay attention to trial design specifically using the same number of implants of the same implant system, but with different attachment systems clearly identified in control and test groups. Trials should also determine the longevity of different attachment systems and patient preferences. Trials on the current array of computer-aided designed/computer-assisted manufactured (CAD/CAM) bar attachment systems are encouraged.