A systematic comparison of bar-clips versus magnets

Abstract Statement of problem Currently, which type of suprastructure is preferred when fabricating implant-retained craniofacial prostheses is unknown. Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the best retention system (bar-clips versus magnets) for implant-retained craniofacia...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2017-02, Vol.117 (2), p.321-326.e2
Main Authors: Brandão, Thais Bianca, DDS, MSc, Vechiato Filho, Aljomar José, DDS, MSc, de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo, DDS, MSc, de Oliveira, Maria Cecília Querido, DDS, Visser, Anita, DDS, MSc, PhD, de Faria, José Carlos Marques, MD, PhD, Júnior, Gilberto de Castro, MD, MSc, PhD, Santos-Silva, Alan Roger, DDS, MSc, PhD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported - instrumentation
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported - methods
Dentistry
Humans
Magnets
Maxillofacial Prosthesis
Prosthesis Retention - instrumentation
Prosthesis Retention - methods
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Statement of problem Currently, which type of suprastructure is preferred when fabricating implant-retained craniofacial prostheses is unknown. Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the best retention system (bar-clips versus magnets) for implant-retained craniofacial prostheses. Material and methods This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A systematic search of Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases for clinical trials was conducted on implant-retained craniofacial prostheses published between 2005 and 2015. English-language studies that directly compared different types of retention systems or presented information on implant survival, periimplant soft tissue reactions, and prosthetic complications were included. Nonclinical studies were excluded to eliminate bias. Results A total to 173 studies were identified, of which 10 satisfied the inclusion criteria. In total, 492 participants were included in these studies. Four selected studies displayed detailed information with regard to the number of implant failures according to the retention system. As reported, 29 (18.2%) of 159 implants with magnets failed, whereas 25 (31.6%) of 79 implants with bars failed. Overall auricular superstructures showed the highest survival (99.08%). In addition, 55.4% of all participants in the selected studies showed grade 0 of periimplant soft tissue reactions. Conclusions A systematic search for clinical studies resulted in few studies with a short-term follow-up and small number of participants. The limited data collected indicated that magnets show fewer complications than bar superstructures; however, no hard conclusions could be drawn. Further research, preferably in the form of clinical trials, is needed to validate these findings.
ISSN:0022-3913
1097-6841
DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.020