Clinical outcomes of implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxilla: A systematic review

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical outcomes for the various methods of rehabilitation of a severely atrophic maxilla with the help of implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Materials and Methods: The relevant publications published between 2013 and 2022 and written only in English were identified using an electronic search. The primary research question for this study was developed based on the PICO framework, which stands for population, intervention, control, and outcomes which was “What are the clinical outcomes of implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation in patients with severely atrophic maxilla?” The relevancy of the articles was confirmed by examining their titles, abstracts, and complete texts to determine whether they satisfied the requirements for inclusion. Utilizing specialized study design-related bias assessment forms, the risk of bias was evaluated. Results: The database search resulted in 1568 results; however, 1529 of them were eliminated because of insufficient, duplicate, or missing data. Additionally, manual searching yielded 11 articles. After 50 full-text papers were assessed for eligibility, 17 articles were eliminated. Thus, 33 studies in total are included in the current systematic review. Risk of bias analysis and GRADE evidence analysis were performed. Data were found to be heterogeneous and thus meta-analysis could not be done and narrative synthesis is presented. Conclusion: The patient’s condition and the clinician’s expertise play a role in taking the decision on choice of technique for the fixed implant-supported rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxilla. A high success and survival rate is produced by the majority of fixed implant-assisted prostheses despite the biologic and prosthetic problems. A single approach cannot be recommended as the gold standard. The choice is dependent on the patient’s biological factors as well as the clinician’s expertise. The included studies were assessed using GRADE criteria. The quality of evidence is low-medium. Therefore, to better comprehend the clinical effectiveness of the treatment alternatives, more well-designed randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up period are required.