Tooth-Implant Connection: A Review

Abstract

Connecting teeth to osseointegrated implants presents a biomechanical challenge. is is due to the implant being rigidly �xed to the bone and the tooth being attached to the bone with a periodontal ligament. In order to overcome this problem, various connection types such as rigid and nonrigid have been proposed. However, the mechanism of attachment and the perceived problem of the differential support provided by the implant and the tooth have been discussed by many authors, and the ideal connection type is still controversial. e aim of this study was to carry out a review of all available literature addressing the tooth-implant connection and evidence-based understanding of the management of tooth-implant-retained restorations.

Marginal bone level evaluation for combined tooth-implant retained Kennedy Class I Partial denture versus implant retained partial denture using extracoronal attachments

“…The use of both rigid and non-rigid connectors of different designs has been suggested to diminish these effects. 2,3 A study confirms that the stress-breaking action of the non-rigid connector, clarifying decrease of stresses within the implant by a factor of 24 when the force is applied on the tooth side. There are numerous reasons support the joining of teeth and implants.…”

“…Finally, in periodontally compromised cases, the implants can provide stabilization of the teeth. 4,5 Tooth-to-implant connection can be a rational treatment choice in certain clinical situations, but that rigid connection should be used with caution particularly when there are periodontal problems. 6 It has been stated that the usage of tooth-implant supported prosthesis significantly reduce mechanical problems hazard once compared to implant supported prosthesis.…”

Tooth implant connection: boon or bane- a review

“…Selection criteria is based on the number and condition of the remaining teeth, space available, adequacy of bone support, patient's desire and economic factors. If planning for implant treatment, implant only supported fixed prosthesis remains the treatment of choice but certain situations necessitate the use of tooth implant supported prosthesis 7 .…”

Biomechanical interactions of endodontically treated tooth implant-supported prosthesis under fatigue test with acoustic emission monitoring

“…Systematic reviews to assess the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) indicated that the survival rates for both implants and reconstructions combined with tooth implant-supported prosthesis (TISP) were lower than those reported for implant-only supported prosthesis [ 1 – 5 ]. Historically, connecting a tooth to an implant is discouraged because differences in tooth and implant mobility would result in the prosthesis being cantilevered to stress the implant [ 2 – 5 ]. However, splinting the implant and natural tooth is occasionally used as a rational alternative for anatomical structural reasons or patient-centered preferences [ 1 – 5 ].…”

“…Historically, connecting a tooth to an implant is discouraged because differences in tooth and implant mobility would result in the prosthesis being cantilevered to stress the implant [ 2 – 5 ]. However, splinting the implant and natural tooth is occasionally used as a rational alternative for anatomical structural reasons or patient-centered preferences [ 1 – 5 ]. Endodontically treated tooth restored used a post and core build-up and full crown is occasionally regarded as an abutment tooth in a TISP with healthy periodontal stability and in dense bone situations [ 4 , 6 – 12 ].…”