Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 1, 2025
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Peri-implant mucosal response to implant-supported overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Jagan Kumar Baskaradoss1, Amrita Geevarghese2, Mirza Rustum Baig3
1Division of Dental Public Health, Department of Developmental and Preventive Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat, Kuwait.
Objectives:
To systematically review and evaluate the effects of different types of attachments, implant numbers and loading protocols on the peri-implant mucosa of implant-supported overdentures (ISODs).
Background:
The impact of peri-implant tissue health on the ISOD treatment outcome is unclear, and current evidence is inadequate on this aspect.
Materials And Methods:
A systematic literature search for randomised controlled trials or prospective studies was conducted in indexed databases from 1995 to April 2020. The focused question was as follows: How does the peri-implant mucosa respond to implant-supported or implant-tissue-supported complete overdentures based on different types of attachments, implant numbers, and loading protocols, in terms of clinical outcomes achieved [plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing pocket depth (PD) and bleeding index (BI)]? A random- or fixed-effects model was applied to measure the significance of standardised mean differences (SMD) of PD between the groups.
Results:
Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria. The SMD for PD between splinted/bar and unsplinted/stud attachments was 0.10 mm (95% CI: -0.27 to 0.47; P = .60) and between 2- and 4-implant groups was 0.15 mm (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.45; P = .34), which were not statistically significant. Significant difference (P = .003) was observed between immediate/early loading and delayed loading (SMD = 0.46 mm [95% CI: 0.16 to 0.75]).
Conclusions:
Probing depth for the immediate loaded implants was significantly higher than for the delayed loading group. No attachment type, implant number or loading protocol seemed to have a clear advantage over the other, in terms of other peri-implant mucosal outcome measures.
