Are patient-reported outcomes improved by implant-assisted maxillary prostheses compared to conventional maxillary dentures? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Edentulism can be treated with conventional complete dentures or implant-assisted prostheses. While two-implant assisted overdentures are superior to conventional mandibular dentures, the effectiveness of maxillary options remains unclear. This systematic review aims to assess whether conventional or implant-assisted maxillary prostheses provide better satisfaction and quality of life for patients with edentulous maxilla. DATA AND SOURCES: An electronic search was conducted across Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to May 23, 2024, to find studies comparing satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life in patients using conventional maxillary dentures versus implant-assisted maxillary prostheses. STUDY SELECTION: Out of 1119 retrieved articles, 1085 were deemed irrelevant after screening, and 34 studies were evaluated for inclusion. Only six studies met the criteria, with the main reason for exclusion being the lack of comparison between new implant prostheses and new conventional dentures, as opposed to old unsatisfactory conventional maxillary dentures. Due to limited sample sizes and high heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not feasible. The literature did not show significant differences in quality of life or satisfaction between conventional and implant-assisted complete maxillary prostheses, except for patients with pre-treatment preference toward implants. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence supporting the superiority of either conventional or implant-assisted prosthetic options for restoring the edentulous maxilla. Further well-designed clinical studies are needed to compare new conventional and new implant-assisted complete maxillary prostheses with different designs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Conventional and implant-assisted complete maxillary prostheses appear equally successful in restoring the quality of life and satisfaction of patients with an edentulous maxilla. The cost and morbidity associated with implant-assisted prostheses may be greater. A properly made conventional denture can serve as a diagnostic tool to assist treatment planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".