SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Single versus two implant-supported mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of implant survival and prosthetic complications.
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally Invasive Implant Rehabilitation in Geriatric Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Contemporary Strategies to Avoid Extensive Bone Augmentation Procedures.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Long-term success of implant-supported overdentures: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Nutritional outcomes in edentulous patients with conventional and single-implant overdentures: A cross-sectional study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review evaluated the implant survival rate and prosthetic complications of single implant-supported mandibular overdentures (1-IOD) and compared them with those of traditionally recommended two implant-supported mandibular overdentures (2-IOD).
methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used as a reference for reporting this systematic review. The study protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD420250644169). This review included 17 randomized controlled trials that compared 1-IOD and 2-IOD, with a follow-up period of at least 12 months after denture placement. The assessed outcomes included implant survival rate, denture fractures, denture relining, O-ring replacement, and metal housing reattachment. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool.
resultsThis meta-analysis revealed no difference in implant survival rates between the 1- and 2-IOD groups over a 5-year period. In the subgroup analysis, overdenture fractures, denture remakes, and metal housing reattachments were more frequently observed in the 1-IOD group, whereas no statistically significant differences were found in the need for relining or O-ring replacement.
conclusionsAlthough 1-IOD may be a less invasive alternative to 2-IOD, careful consideration is necessary because of its increased incidence of prosthetic complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.