Prevalência dos tipos de tratamento protético em adultos edêntulos:uma revisão sistemática e metanálise

Abstract

Edentulism, defined as the complete loss of natural teeth, remains an important global public health problem, particularly among older adults, and is associated with negative impacts on quality of life, functional limitations, and socioeconomic inequalities in access to oral rehabilitation. Despite the availability of different prosthetic treatment modalities, the distribution and prevalence of these treatments among edentulous adults have not been widely synthesized in the literature. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to estimate the global prevalence of different prosthetic treatment types used among edentulous adults to support oral health planning. Observational studies reporting primary epidemiological data on edentulous adults (≥18 years), with or without prosthetic rehabilitation, were considered. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, ProQuest, and the Cochrane Library, for studies published from 2000 onwards, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024483759). Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria. A total of 28 observational studies from 18 countries were included, comprising 122,152 edentulous adults, predominantly aged 60 years or older. Complete dentures represented the predominant form of rehabilitation, with a pooled prevalence of 29% (95% CI: 15–43), being more frequent in the upper arch (17%) than in the lower arch (12%). Implant-supported prostheses were reported less frequently, representing approximately 5% of rehabilitations. The pooled prevalence of absence of prostheses was 33% (95% CI: 11–55), reaching 56% in the lower arch. High methodological heterogeneity was observed among the included studies. Complete dentures remain the predominant form of rehabilitation among edentulous adults. The high prevalence of absence of prosthetic rehabilitation highlights substantial unmet needs in this population. The considerable heterogeneity and limitations in data comparability underscore the need for greater standardization in the collection and reporting of epidemiological data. These findings may contribute to the planning and development of public oral health policies.