Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42567046

Implant-Supported and Conventional Dentures: A Meta-Analysis in Older Adults.

Heboyan Artak, Kaur Kanwalpreet, Saini Ravinder S, et al. · International dental journal · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1016/j.identj.2026.109782

Findings

Population Edentulous older adults requiring prosthetic rehabilitation

7 findings

Implant-retained overdentures (IODs), mainly mandibular two-implant ball or bar-clipConventional complete dentures (CCDs)Functional limitation (OHRQoL domain)
Longest follow-up with usable data (6 months to 4 years across trials) · Clinical trials in North America, South America, Europe and Asia
MD -3.04 [-6.69, 0.61]
GRADE not reported
7 studies · 633 participants
Implant-retained overdentures (IODs), mainly mandibular two-implant ball or bar-clipConventional complete dentures (CCDs)Psychological discomfort (OHRQoL domain)
Longest follow-up with usable data (6 months to 4 years across trials) · Clinical trials in North America, South America, Europe and Asia
MD -1.87 [-4.44, 0.71]
GRADE not reported
7 studies · 633 participants
Implant-retained overdentures (IODs), mainly mandibular two-implant ball or bar-clipConventional complete dentures (CCDs)Psychological disability (OHRQoL domain)
Longest follow-up with usable data (6 months to 4 years across trials) · Clinical trials in North America, South America, Europe and Asia
MD 0.46 [-1.77, 2.69]
GRADE not reported
7 studies · 633 participants
Implant-retained overdentures (IODs), mainly mandibular two-implant ball or bar-clipConventional complete dentures (CCDs)Social disability (OHRQoL domain)
Longest follow-up with usable data (6 months to 4 years across trials) · Clinical trials in North America, South America, Europe and Asia
MD -0.28 [-1.34, 0.78]
GRADE not reported
7 studies · 633 participants
Implant-retained overdentures (IODs), mainly mandibular two-implant ball or bar-clipConventional complete dentures (CCDs)Physical pain (OHRQoL domain)
Longest follow-up with usable data (6 months to 4 years across trials) · Clinical trials in North America, South America, Europe and Asia
MD -2.67 [-6.15, 0.80]
GRADE not reported
7 studies · 633 participants
Implant-retained overdentures (IODs), mainly mandibular two-implant ball or bar-clipConventional complete dentures (CCDs)Physical disability (OHRQoL domain)
Longest follow-up with usable data (6 months to 4 years across trials) · Clinical trials in North America, South America, Europe and Asia
MD -2.46 [-5.19, 0.27]
GRADE not reported
7 studies · 633 participants
Implant-retained overdentures (IODs), mainly mandibular two-implant ball or bar-clipConventional complete dentures (CCDs)Handicap (OHRQoL domain)
Longest follow-up with usable data (6 months to 4 years across trials) · Clinical trials in North America, South America, Europe and Asia
MD 0.02 [-1.44, 1.47]
GRADE not reported
7 studies · 633 participants

Included primary studies 21

Open in Studies
StudyYearAlso included byOutcomes it informs hereTrial data
Muller 2013
Implant-supported mandibular overdentures in very old adults: a randomized controlled trial.
PMID:24158342
20133 other reviewsnot statednot extracted yet
Hamdan 2013
Do implant overdentures improve dietary intake? A randomized clinical trial.
PMID:24158335
20131 other reviewnot statednot extracted yet
Morais 2003
The effects of mandibular two-implant overdentures on nutrition in elderly edentulous individuals.
PMID:12508046
20031 other reviewnot statednot extracted yet
Allen 2006
A randomized controlled trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures.
PMID:16723653
2006this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Assuncao 2007
Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among elderly edentulous patients:…
PMID:17999736
2007this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Awad 2003
Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients:…
PMID:12737240
2003this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Boerrigter 1995
Patient satisfaction with implant-retained mandibular overdentures. A comparison with new complete dentures not retained by implants--a…
PMID:8555143
1995this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Cakir 2014
Evaluation of the efficacy of mandibular conventional and implant prostheses in a group of Turkish patients: a quality of life study.
PMID:24417762
2014this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Fontijn-Tekamp 2004
Swallowing thresholds of mandibular implant-retained overdentures with variable portion sizes.
PMID:15142103
2004this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Geertman 1996
Two-center clinical trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus complete dentures-chewing ability.
PMID:8833520
1996this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Hamada 2001
A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic…
PMID:11174679
2001this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Harris 2013
A comparison of implant-retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life in edentulous patients: a…
PMID:22111872
2013this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Heydecke 2005
Cost-effectiveness of mandibular two-implant overdentures and conventional dentures in the edentulous elderly.
PMID:16109986
2005this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Heydecke 2008
Do mandibular implant overdentures and conventional complete dentures meet the expectations of edentulous patients?
PMID:19093056
2008this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Jabbour 2012
Is oral health-related quality of life stable following rehabilitation with mandibular two-implant overdentures?
PMID:22092512
2012this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Khalid 2017
Patient-reported outcome and its association with attachment type and bone volume in mandibular implant overdenture.
PMID:26989853
2017this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Nogueira 2019
Changes in masticatory performance of edentulous patients treated with single-implant mandibular overdentures and conventional complete…
PMID:30387869
2019this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Pan 2014
Comparison of patient's satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures and complete dentures.
PMID:24923574
2014this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Possebon 2023
Immediate versus conventional loading of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
PMID:37612525
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Rashid 2011
The effectiveness of 2-implant overdentures - a pragmatic international multicentre study.
PMID:20704639
2011this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Sun 2014
Masticatory efficiency and oral health-related quality of life with implant-retained mandibular overdentures.
PMID:25316463
2014this review onlynot statednot extracted yet

Overlap with other reviews

Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationEdentulous adults requiring prosthetic rehabilitation, particularly older adultsEdentulous older adults (mean ages 65 to 75 years; 1452 participants; mostly mandibular overdentures)
InterventionImplant-retained overdentures retained by a defined attachment systemImplant-retained overdentures (ball or bar-clip attachments; mostly two-implant mandibular)
ComparisonConventional complete dentures not supported by implantsConventional complete dentures
OutcomesPrimary: OHRQoL, denture satisfaction, masticatory performance. Secondary: physical, psychological, social and nutritional outcomes, implant survival, complicationsOHRQoL domain scores pooled for 7 trials (7 domains); denture satisfaction, masticatory performance, nutrition, implant survival and complications synthesized narratively
Study designsRandomized controlled trials in English, follow-up of at least 6 months21 RCTs (7 contributing to pooled analyses)
TimingFollow-up of at least 6 monthsFollow-up 6 months to 4 years

AMSTAR 2 items

Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.

ItemExtractor AExtractor BAgree
1Research question includes PICO componentsYesYesyes
2Protocol established before the reviewcriticalPartial YesPartial Yesyes
3Choice of study designs explainedNoNoyes
4Comprehensive literature searchcriticalPartial YesPartial Yesyes
5Study selection in duplicateYesYesyes
6Data extraction in duplicateYesYesyes
7List of excluded studies with reasonscriticalNoNoyes
8Included studies described in detailYesYesyes
9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycriticalRCT: Yes · NRSI: N/ANRSI: N/A · RCT: Yesno
10Funding of included studies reportedYesYesyes
11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscriticalRCT: No · NRSI: N/ANRSI: N/A · RCT: Nono
12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled resultsNoNoyes
13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcriticalYesYesyes
14Heterogeneity explainedYesYesyes
15Publication bias investigatedcriticalNoNoyes
16Conflicts of interest reportedYesYesyes
OverallCritically LowCritically Lowyes