File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs)

TitleComparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs)
Authors
KeywordsBiological complications
Complication rates
Dental implants
Failures
Fixed dental prosthesis
Fixed partial dentures
Implant dentistry
Longitudinal
Single crowns
Success
Survival
Systematic review
Technical complications
Issue Date2007
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2007, v. 18 SUPPL. 3, p. 97-113 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: The objective of this systematic review was to assess and compare the 5- and 10-year survival of different types of tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) and single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications. Methods: Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on FDPs and SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year survival proportions. Results: Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDPs of 93.8%, cantilever FDPs of 91.4%, solely implant-supported FDPs of 95.2%, combined tooth-implant-supported FDPs of 95.5% and implant-supported SCs of 94.5%. Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89.2% for conventional FDPs, to 80.3% for cantilever FDPs, to 86.7% for implant-supported FDPs, to 77.8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDPs and to 89.4% for implant-supported SCs. Despite high survival rates, 38.7% the patients with implant-supported FDPs had some complications after the 5-year observation period. This is compared with 15.7% for conventional FDPs and 20.6% for cantilever FDPs, respectively. For conventional tooth-supported FDPs, the most frequent complications were biological complications like caries and loss of pulp vitality. Compared with tooth-supported FDPs, the incidence of technical complications was significantly higher for the implant-supported reconstructions.The most frequent technical complications were fractures of the veneer material (ceramic fractures or chipping), abutment or screw loosening and loss of retention. Conclusion: On the basis of the results of the present systematic review, planning of prosthetic rehabilitations should preferentially include conventional end abutment tooth-supported FDPs, solely implant-supported FDPs or implant-supported SCs. Only for reasons of anatomical structures or patient-centered preferences and as a second option should cantilever tooth-supported FDPs or FDPs supported by combination of implants and teeth be chosen. © 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154463
ISSN
2020 Impact Factor: 5.977
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.407
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPjetursson, BEen_US
dc.contributor.authorBrägger, Uen_US
dc.contributor.authorLang, NPen_US
dc.contributor.authorZwahlen, Men_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:25:28Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:25:28Z-
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2007, v. 18 SUPPL. 3, p. 97-113en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154463-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The objective of this systematic review was to assess and compare the 5- and 10-year survival of different types of tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) and single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications. Methods: Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on FDPs and SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year survival proportions. Results: Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDPs of 93.8%, cantilever FDPs of 91.4%, solely implant-supported FDPs of 95.2%, combined tooth-implant-supported FDPs of 95.5% and implant-supported SCs of 94.5%. Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89.2% for conventional FDPs, to 80.3% for cantilever FDPs, to 86.7% for implant-supported FDPs, to 77.8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDPs and to 89.4% for implant-supported SCs. Despite high survival rates, 38.7% the patients with implant-supported FDPs had some complications after the 5-year observation period. This is compared with 15.7% for conventional FDPs and 20.6% for cantilever FDPs, respectively. For conventional tooth-supported FDPs, the most frequent complications were biological complications like caries and loss of pulp vitality. Compared with tooth-supported FDPs, the incidence of technical complications was significantly higher for the implant-supported reconstructions.The most frequent technical complications were fractures of the veneer material (ceramic fractures or chipping), abutment or screw loosening and loss of retention. Conclusion: On the basis of the results of the present systematic review, planning of prosthetic rehabilitations should preferentially include conventional end abutment tooth-supported FDPs, solely implant-supported FDPs or implant-supported SCs. Only for reasons of anatomical structures or patient-centered preferences and as a second option should cantilever tooth-supported FDPs or FDPs supported by combination of implants and teeth be chosen. © 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_US
dc.subjectBiological complications-
dc.subjectComplication rates-
dc.subjectDental implants-
dc.subjectFailures-
dc.subjectFixed dental prosthesis-
dc.subjectFixed partial dentures-
dc.subjectImplant dentistry-
dc.subjectLongitudinal-
dc.subjectSingle crowns-
dc.subjectSuccess-
dc.subjectSurvival-
dc.subjectSystematic review-
dc.subjectTechnical complications-
dc.subject.meshCrowns - Adverse Effectsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Prosthesis Designen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported - Adverse Effectsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration Failureen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration, Permanent - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.titleComparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid17594374-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-34250625230en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-34250625230&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume18en_US
dc.identifier.issueSUPPL. 3en_US
dc.identifier.spage97en_US
dc.identifier.epage113en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000247914600011-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPjetursson, BE=6506841442en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBrägger, U=7005538598en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, NP=7201577367en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZwahlen, M=7004748418en_US
dc.identifier.issnl0905-7161-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats