A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years: II. Combined tooth–implant‐supported FPDs

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5‐ and 10‐year survival of combined tooth–implant‐supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and the incidence of biological and technical complications. Methods: An electronic MEDLINE search supplemented by manual searching was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on FPDs with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow‐up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data abstraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random‐effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5‐ and 10‐year survival proportions. Results: From a total of 3844 titles and 560 abstracts, 176 articles were selected for full‐text analysis, and 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta‐analysis of these studies indicated an estimated survival of implants in combined tooth–implant‐supported FPDs of 90.1% (95 percent confidence interval (95% CI): 82.4–94.5%) after 5 and 82.1% (95% CI: 55.8–93.6%) after 10 years. The survival rate of FPDs was 94.1% (95% CI: 90.2–96.5%) after 5 and 77.8% (95% CI: 66.4–85.7%) after 10 years of function. There was no significant difference in survival of tooth and implant abutments in combined tooth–implant FPDs. After an observation period of 5 years, 3.2% (95% CI: 1.5–7.2%) of the abutment teeth and 3.4% (95% CI: 2.2–5.3%) of the functionally loaded implants were lost. After 10 years, the corresponding proportions were 10.6% (95% CI: 3.5–23.1%) for the abutment teeth and 15.6% (95% CI: 6.5–29.5%) for the implants. After a 5 year observation period, intrusion was detected in 5.2% (95% CI: 2–13.3%) of the abutment teeth. Intrusion of abutment teeth were almost exclusively detected among non‐rigid connections. Conclusion: Survival rates of both implants and reconstructions in combined tooth–implant‐supported FPDs were lower than those reported for solely implant‐supported FPDs (Pjetursson et al. 2004). Hence, planning of prosthetic rehabilitation may preferentially include solely implant‐supported FPDs. However, anatomical aspects, patient centered issues and risk assessments of the residual dentition may still justify combined tooth–implant‐supported reconstructions. It was evident from the present search that tooth–implant‐supported FPDs have not been studied to any great extent and hence, there is a definitive need for more longitudinal studies examining these reconstructions.