ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
spacer
Title Implant Supported Fixed Partial Dentures Have a Higher Success Rate Than Tooth Supported Fixed Partial Dentures
Clinical Question In partially edentulous patients, does an implant supported fixed partial denture have a higher success rate than a tooth supported one?
Clinical Bottom Line Implant supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs) have a higher success rate than tooth supported FPDs. (See Comments on the CAT below)
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 11168268Bragger/200133 Implant FPD patients, 40 tooth FPD patients, 15 mixed FPD patients.Comparative Study
Key resultsBiological complications in all three groups were usually associated with general health problems or bad oral habits. Statistically significantly more technical complications (i.e. porcelain fracture) were found in FPDs on implants (p< or = 0.05) and most often due to extensions and bruxism.
Evidence Search Success rate Tooth supported FPD versus implant supported FPD.
Comments on
The Evidence
Groups were not similar at start since several usually had some general health problem or bad oral habit. Although, it was not double-blind but it seems as though the follow-up was adequate. There was >90% completion rate.
Applicability Although systematic reviews exist for survival rates and complication rates for implant-to-implant supported and tooth-to-tooth supported FPDs independently, this article was specific to the comparison of the two FPD supports. Subjects are representative of any dentists patients and the treatment is feasible in any setting.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Oral Surgery) (Orthodontics) (Periodontics) (Prosthodontics) (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords Success rates, complication rates, tooth supported fixed partial dentures, implant supported fixed partial dentures, comparison
ID# 621
Date of submission: 03/30/2010spacer
E-mail martinezaa@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Alejandro Martinez
Co-author(s)
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Ernest Valdez, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail VALDEZE@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
spacer
Comments on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS' and/or FACULTY COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs)
post a comment
by Ashley Reyes (San Antonio, TX) on 07/08/2012
In a recent PubMed search related your topic, Pjetursson 2008 PMID: 15533125, a meta-analysis comparing 5- and 10-year survival rates of implant-supported and tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis. It was estimated that after five years, survival rates for tooth-supported FDPs was 93.8% and implant-supported FDPs was 95.2%. After 10 years, survival rates were 89.2% for tooth-supported FDPs and 86.7% for implant-supported FDPs. This agrees with your initial evaluation at 5-year survival rates, but clarifies longer term prognosis of implant-supported and tooth-supported FDPs.
by Carson Phillips (San Antonio, TX) on 04/20/2012
A recent search on PubMed found two independent studies, one involved with strictly tooth supported FPDs (Tan 2004 PMID: 15533126 ) while the other involved only implant supported FPDs (Pjetursson 2004 PMID: 15533124
spacer

Return to Found CATs list