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

Objectives: 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.