Three‐unit fixed dental prostheses supported by either two abutment implants or two abutment teeth: A comparative retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Objectives In general, similar restorative constructions are made on natural teeth and on dental implants. The assumption is made that implants and their restoration perform the same as natural roots and their prosthetic restoration. Evaluating cohorts of three‐unit bridges on teeth and on implants, this retrospective clinical study aimed to compare implants and teeth as supporting units, including the reconstructions, in terms of survival, success, clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes. Material and Methods From an 8‐year period, all patients treated with a posterior three‐unit fixed reconstruction on either implants or teeth, with a follow‐up of at least 2 years, were identified. For each implant‐supported reconstruction, a comparable tooth‐supported reconstruction was selected, based on the length of follow‐up, the material of the reconstruction, and the location in either the maxilla or mandible. Results For the Implant‐group, 24 patients could be matched with 24 best matching patients with tooth‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs). Supporting implants and implant‐supported reconstructions were all in function with a mean follow‐up of 52 ± 23 months. Two tooth‐supported reconstructions had been replaced (91.7% survival) (mean follow‐up: 52 ± 19 months). Radiographic bone levels and soft tissue conditions were favorable in both groups with minor differences. There was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction. The modified USPHS‐score revealed an 87.5% overall success in the Implant‐group and 91.7% in the Tooth‐group. Conclusions Implant‐supported three‐unit FDPs are a reliable treatment option with survival and success rates not significantly different from the results of tooth‐supported three‐unit FDPs.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID‐COSM) international consensus report

“…It is reported as the presence/absence of an adverse event as described in the working definition. It is expressed dichotomously or by validated rating scales (e.g., USPHS criteria; Naenni et al, 2015; Pol et al, 2022). Implant/prosthesis loss. Fixed prostheses: chipping, framework fracture, veneering fracture, abutment fracture, screw fracture, screw loosening, loss of retention, de‐cementation. Removable prostheses: fracture or dislodgement of matrix or bar, loss of retention of components, fracture of the prosthesis, relining/rebase, fracture/detachment of acrylic teeth, loosening of components (matrix, bar), wear of matrix, wear of acrylic teeth, replacement of acrylic teeth and discolouration. …”

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID‐COSM) international consensus report

“…It is reported as the presence/absence of an adverse event as described in the working definition. It is expressed dichotomously or by validated rating scales (e.g., USPHS criteria; Naenni et al, 2015; Pol et al, 2022). Implant/prosthesis loss. Fixed prostheses: chipping, framework fracture, veneering fracture, abutment fracture, screw fracture, screw loosening, loss of retention, de‐cementation. Removable prostheses: fracture or dislodgement of matrix or bar, loss of retention of components, fracture of the prosthesis, relining/rebase, fracture/detachment of acrylic teeth, loosening of components (matrix, bar), wear of matrix, wear of acrylic teeth, replacement of acrylic teeth and discolouration. …”

“…It is reported as the presence/absence of an adverse event as described in the working definition. It is expressed dichotomously or by validated rating scales (e.g., USPHS criteria; Naenni et al, 2015;Pol et al, 2022).…”