Articles
Vol. 17 No. 3 (2025)
https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2025.574

Attachments in single implant mandibular overdentures and their clinical performance: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Received: 17 April 2023
Accepted: 23 July 2024
Published: 19 September 2025
139
Views
68
Downloads
Edentulism, Complete Denture, Implant Overdenture

Authors

P. G. Patil
pravinandsmita@yahoo.co.in
BDS, MDS, PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Division of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, IMU University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
L. L. Seow
BDS, MSc, PhD. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Division of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, IMU University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
T. J. Kweh
BDS, M Clin Dent. Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Division of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, IMU University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
S. Nimbalkar
BDS, MDS. Senior Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics, Division of Clinical Oral Health Sciences, School of Dentistry IMU University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Objectives To compare results of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating peri- implant tissue changes and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) using different attachments in single implant retained mandibular overdentures (SIMO).

Methods A literature search were conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PubMed MEDLINE and databases. Only RCTs done on SIMO measuring peri-implant tissue outcomes and PROMs were selected. Total 115 studies were shortlisted initially, and 13 full texts evaluated in detail and only 3 studies (2 cross-over studies, 1 parallel 2-arm studies) were included in the review. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0).

Results All 3 studies were assessed to have low risk of bias. Total 30 patients with ball attachments (in 2 studies), 19 with Low-profile Locator attachments (in 2 studies), 18 with Low- profile Equator attachments (in 1 study), 18 with magnet attachments (in 1 study) and 12 with large ball attachments (in 1 study) were observed. All three studies utilized standard-sized implants with different manufacturers. Single study compared large ball, standard ball, and Locator attachments and revealed no differences. Two cross-over studies compared patient preference between (Locator and magnet) and (ball and Equator) and reveled no preference between ball and Equator while the patient preferred Locator attachments over magnets. Single study compared masticatory efficiency between the Locator and magnet attachment and another between ball and Equator attachments and both showed comparable results.

Conclusions Crestal bone level changes and masticatory efficiency were not influenced by any of the overdenture attachments system in SIMO. No difference in patient satisfaction using SIMO was observed between ball and low-profile attachments (Locator and Equator). Patients using SIMO preferred Locator attachments over magnets.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

How to Cite



Attachments in single implant mandibular overdentures and their clinical performance: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. (2025). Journal of Osseointegration, 17(3), 95-102. https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2025.574
Copyright (c) 2025 Tecniche Nuove Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.