Zahra Athab Abduljabbar

Background: Few long‐term studies compare tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) in the posterior region. Objectives: To compare the 5‐ and 10‐year survival and complication outcomes of tooth‐ and implant‐supported FDPs and to assess patient‐reported effects. Material and Methods: This retrospective multicenter clinical study investigates patients treated with 3–5 units tooth‐supported fixed dental prostheses (TSFDPs) and 1–4 units implant‐supported FDPs in the posterior region at two specialist dental clinics (2009–2019) using clinical and radiographical examinations and Oral Health Impact Profile‐14 (OHIP‐14). Survival, biological, and technical complications as well as patient‐reported effects were recorded. Results: A total of 180 patients with 238 FDPs: 113 TSFDPs, 71 implant‐supported crowns (ISCs), and 54 implant‐supported fixed partial prostheses (ISFPPs) were examined after a mean follow‐up of 10 years. The 5‐year cumulative survival rate for TSFDPs and implant‐supported FDPs was 98% ( p = 0.71). The 10‐year cumulative survival rates were 94% for TSFDPs and 93% for implant‐supported FDPs ( p = 0.87). Eight TSFDPs, three ISCs, and five ISFPPs failed. Biological complications were recorded in 24.8% of TSFDPs and in 9.6% of implant‐supported FDPs ( p = 0.012). Technical complications were recorded in 29.9% of TSFDPs and in 27% of implant‐supported FDPs ( p = 0.62). Low OHIP‐14 scores were reported in patients with tooth‐supported (4.8 ± 6.7), implant‐supported (3 ± 4.3), and with both types of FDPs (3.5 ± 3.6). Scores that indicate a good OHRQoL. Conclusion: Tooth‐ and implant‐supported FDPs had high survival rates after 5 and 10 years. Biological complications had the highest impact on prostheses failure.

Background It is not clear to what extent chewing is improved by unilateral oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses (ISFPPs). Objectives This study aimed to investigate whether patients treated with unilateral ISFPPs in the maxilla use their prostheses during mastication to the same extent as they used their contralateral natural teeth. A further aim was to investigate whether there is a correlation between preferred chewing side and laterality. Methods Chewing side preference was assessed in 15 participants treated with unilateral ISFPPs in the maxilla. The first, second, third, fifth and tenth chewing cycles were assessed, and the test was repeated 10 times. All participants also answered a questionnaire about their chewing side preference. Results Most of the participants presented bilateral chewing, but two (13%) chewed only on the ISFPP. There was no statistically significant association between the objectively assessed chewing side and dental status (natural teeth or ISFPPs) during any of the recorded chewing cycles (p > .1). There were statistically significant correlations between both the subjectively reported usually preferred chewing side and the subjective chewing side preference during the test and the objectively assessed chewing side for the first three chewing cycles (p < .01). No correlation was found between handedness and the objectively assessed chewing side. Conclusion In the present study, most participants chewed bilaterally, and chewing was performed both on the ISFPP and on the natural teeth. No correlation was found between the preferred chewing side, objectively or subjectively determined and laterality.