Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 35 (2020), No. 4 30. July 2020
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 35 (2020), No. 4 (30.07.2020)
Page 685-699, doi:10.11607/jomi.8091, PubMed:32724920
Outcomes and Complication Rates of the Tooth-Implant–Supported Fixed Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Alsabeeha, Nabeel H. M. / Atieh, Momen A.
Purpose: To evaluate the implant and prosthetic outcomes and biologic and technical complications of tooth-implant– supported fixed dental prostheses (TISFDPs) in comparison with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs).
Materials and Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was performed by two independent reviewers up to February 2019. A hand search in relevant dental journals was also performed. The search identified a total of 175 citations, and 160 were excluded. Of the remaining 15 articles, seven were included in the review.
Results: The implant failure rate was between 0% and 9% for the TISFDPs and between 0% and 13% for the ISFDPs, and the prosthesis failure rate was between 0% and 13% for the TISFDPs and between 0% and 17% for the ISFDPs; no significant differences were observed within 24 to 120 months of follow-up. Less peri-implant marginal bone loss was observed in the TISFDPs (MD: –0.29; 95% CI: –0.58, 0.00; P = .05), but the difference was marginally significant. Abutment tooth intrusion rate was 3%, while abutment tooth fracture rate was between 0% and 4%. No significant differences in the technical complications were observed, although the TISFDPs had higher failure rates in framework fracture and abutment/prosthesis screw loosening, while ISFDPs had a higher failure rate in porcelain fracture.
Conclusion: The TISFDPs could be an alternative treatment option to ISFDPs for the partially edentulous patient with both treatments achieving comparable implant, prosthetic, biologic, and technical outcomes.
Keywords: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, tooth-implant–supported fixed dental prostheses