de Souza Batista, V. E. [UNESP]Vechiato-Filho, A. J.Santiago, J. F.Sonego, M. V. [UNESP]Verri, F. R. [UNESP]dos Santos, D. M. [UNESP]Goiato, M. C. [UNESP]Pellizzer, E. P. [UNESP]2018-12-112018-12-112018-09-01International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 47, n. 9, p. 1166-1177, 2018.1399-00200901-5027http://hdl.handle.net/11449/175895The aim of this meta-analysis was to verify the clinical viability of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures (SIMO). An electronic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed (end date July 2017); this was supplemented by a manual search of the literature. Only prospective clinical trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SIMO with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel–Haenszel method. Dental implant and prosthetic failure were the dichotomous outcome measures; these were evaluated through the risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Of 499 articles identified, nine fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 205 implants were placed in patients with a mean age of 64.1 years; the cumulative survival rate was 96.6% over a mean follow-up period of 37.3 months. The procedure used (SIMO vs. two implant-retained mandibular overdenture) did not affect dental implant failure (P = 0.45) or prosthetic failure (P = 0.65): RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.91–1.23) and RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.51–1.51), respectively; OR 2.56 (95% CI 0.27–24.39; P = 0.41) and OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.15–1.26; P = 0.13), respectively. Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, SIMO with a complete denture as the opposing arch may be considered an alternative treatment for completely edentulous patients. However, this study also confirmed the need for more RCTs on this topic.1166-1177engdental implantmeta-analysisoverdenturesingle-implantResenha10.1016/j.ijom.2018.01.021Acesso aberto2-s2.0-850421374902-s2.0-85042137490.pdf