Aims: To compare tooth- (TSRP) and implant-supported (ISRP) removable prostheses in terms of abutment and prosthesis survival (PICO 1) and estimated cumulative survival of teeth/implants and prostheses (PICO 2) at ≥12-month post-prosthesis delivery in patients with stage IV periodontitis. Materials and methods: Five databases were searched to identify RCTs, CCTs, single arms, prospective cohort studies, case series and retrospective studies. Duplicate screening was performed, and ranges for abutment and prosthesis survival were calculated. Results: Twenty-six studies were included in the qualitative assessment. Only one study with critical risk of bias comparing the two treatment modalities reported similar survival rates at 2 years. Overall, prospective studies on ISRPs indicated an implant survival rate ranging from 96.4% to 100% and a prosthesis survival rate of 100% with a follow-up from 12 to 54 months. Prospective studies on TSRPs indicated a tooth survival ranging from 85.71% to 100% at 1- to 10-years follow-up. Conclusions: The available evidence is of poor quality, and it does not allow to make robust conclusions on the efficacy of these rehabilitations in stage IV periodontitis patients. Particularly for TSRPs, careful patient selection is crucial and a certain number of biological and prosthetic complications should be expected.
Efficacy of tooth-supported compared to implant-supported full-arch removable prostheses in patients with terminal dentition. A systematic review / Donos, Nikolaos; André Mezzomo, Luis; Mardas, Nikolaos; Goldoni, Matteo; Calciolari, Elena. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY. - ISSN 1600-051X. - (2021). [10.1111/jcpe.13477]
|Appare nelle tipologie:||1.1 Articolo su rivista|