Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42578185

Long-term Outcomes of Tooth-implant Supported Prostheses - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Gupta Abhishek Kumar, Dhandai Gomati, Anitha G, et al. · Annals of maxillofacial surgery · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.4103/ams.ams_160_25

Findings

Population Partially edentulous patients with fixed tooth-implant supported prostheses (TISP)

12 findings

Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Incidence of framework decementation
12 to 72 months follow-up
Mean incidence (%) 1.6 [0.6, 2.7]
GRADE not reported
4 studies
Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Incidence of porcelain fracture
12 to 72 months follow-up
Mean incidence (%) 2.8 [1.0, 4.6]
GRADE not reported
5 studies
Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Prosthesis success (absence of biological or mechanical complications)
12 to 72 months follow-up · Connector type: non-rigid
Average success rate (%) 91.0
GRADE not reported
5 studies
Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Incidence of tooth intrusion
12 to 72 months follow-up
Mean incidence (%) 5.4 [3.1, 7.2]
GRADE not reported
6 studies
Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Prosthesis survival
12 to 72 months follow-up · Connector type: rigid
Average survival rate (%) 90.9
GRADE not reported
5 studies
Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Incidence of screw loosening
12 to 72 months follow-up
Mean incidence (%) 4.1 [1.2, 6.3]
GRADE not reported
7 studies
Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Prosthesis survival
12 to 72 months follow-up
Pooled proportion 0.917 [0.89, 0.93]
GRADE not reported
12 studies · 782 participants
Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Prosthesis survival
12 to 72 months follow-up · Connector type: non-rigid
Average survival rate (%) 93.7
GRADE not reported
5 studies
Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Incidence of marginal bone loss greater than 1 mm
12 to 72 months follow-up
Mean incidence (%) 3.9 [1.8, 6.2]
GRADE not reported
5 studies
Tooth-implant supported fixed prosthesesNone (single-arm pooled proportion)Prosthesis success (absence of biological or mechanical complications)
12 to 72 months follow-up · Connector type: rigid
Average success rate (%) 88.9
GRADE not reported
5 studies
Non-rigid connectorsRigid connectorsProsthesis survival
12 to 72 months follow-up · Fig 2b pooled estimate (10 studies, hazard ratio scale)
HR 0.91 [0.90, 0.93]
GRADE not reported
10 studies
Non-rigid connectorsRigid connectorsProsthesis survival
12 to 72 months follow-up
RD 0.026 [-0.008, 0.057]
GRADE not reported
10 studies

Included primary studies 21

Open in Studies
StudyYearAlso included byOutcomes it informs hereTrial data
Chrcanovic 2020
Analysis of technical complications and risk factors for failure of combined tooth‐implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses
DOI:10.1111/cid.12927
2020this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Chrcanovic 2020
Analysis of technical complications and risk factors for failure of combined tooth-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.
PMID:32524744
2020this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Dahlgren 2024
Long‐term outcomes and complication rates of tooth‐implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective cohort study
DOI:10.1111/jopr.13982
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Dahlgren 2024
Long-term outcomes and complication rates of tooth-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective cohort study.
PMID:39659027
2025this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Ekren 2024
Clinical Evaluation of Mandibular Posterior Three-Unit Combined Tooth-/Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures: Controlled Prospective…
PMID:37768141
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Guarnieri 2019
Long-Term Outcomes of Tooth-Implant-Supported Rehabilitation of Periodontally Compromised and Treated Patients Refusing Bone Grafting…
DOI:10.1097/id.0000000000000847
2019this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Guarnieri 2019
Long-Term Outcomes of Tooth-Implant-Supported Rehabilitation of Periodontally Compromised and Treated Patients Refusing Bone Grafting…
PMID:31219945
2019this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Hashemi 2024
Stress Analysis of Endodontically Treated Tooth–Implant Different Connectors Designs in Maxillary Posterior Region: A Finite Element…
DOI:10.1055/s-0043-1772780
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Hashemi 2024
Stress Analysis of Endodontically Treated Tooth-Implant Different Connectors Designs in Maxillary Posterior Region: A Finite Element…
PMID:37848070
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Jivraj 2018
Connecting implants to teeth
DOI:10.1038/sj.bdj.4814260
2006this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Jivraj 2018
Connecting implants to teeth.
PMID:17128232
2006this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
La Monaca 2021
Survival and complication rates of tooth-implant versus freestanding implant supporting fixed partial prosthesis: a systematic review and…
DOI:10.2186/jpr.jpor_2019_494
2021this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
La Monaca 2021
Survival and complication rates of tooth-implant versus freestanding implant supporting fixed partial prosthesis: a systematic review and…
PMID:32938874
2021this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Lindh 2017
Tooth-implant supported fixed prostheses: a retrospective multicenter study.
PMID:11508086
2001this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Naguib 2023
Effect of non‐rigid connector on the stress distribution of tooth‐implant supported fixed prostheses using different implant length and…
DOI:10.1111/jopr.13702
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Naguib 2023
Effect of non-rigid connector on the stress distribution of tooth-implant supported fixed prostheses using different implant length and…
PMID:37184094
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Narde 2024
Evaluation and assessment of the survival of tooth implant supported prosthesis in tooth and implant supported rehabilitation cases with…
DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-04117-9
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Narde 2024
Evaluation and assessment of the survival of tooth implant supported prosthesis in tooth and implant supported rehabilitation cases with…
PMID:38519932
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Rammelsberg 2021
Effect of prosthetic restoration on implant survival and success
DOI:10.1111/clr.12974
2016this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Rammelsberg 2021
Effect of prosthetic restoration on implant survival and success.
PMID:27624214
2017this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Taneja 2023
Survival of tooth-implant connections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PMID:37861608
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationPartially edentulous patients rehabilitated with tooth-implant supported prostheses732 patients, 840 prostheses (12 studies); elderly, periodontally and systemically compromised subgroups described
InterventionFixed prostheses supported by teeth and implants with various connector configurations and framework materialsTooth-implant supported prostheses with rigid or non-rigid connectors and metal-ceramic or zirconia frameworks
ComparisonRigid vs non-rigid connectors; zirconia vs metal-based frameworks; systemically or periodontally compromised vs healthy populationsRigid vs non-rigid connectors (10 studies); zirconia vs metal frameworks (12 studies)
OutcomesProsthesis survival, success rate, incidence of biomechanical (mechanical and biological) complicationsSurvival (pooled 0.91, n=12); success 86% to 94%; tooth intrusion, screw loosening, porcelain fracture, decementation, marginal bone loss
Study designsClinical studies (RCTs and observational) with at least 12 months follow-upProspective cohorts, retrospective analyses, RCTs and mixed-method designs
TimingAt least 12 months follow-up12 to 72 months follow-up

AMSTAR 2 items

Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.

ItemExtractor AExtractor BAgree
1Research question includes PICO componentsYesYesyes
2Protocol established before the reviewcriticalPartial YesPartial Yesyes
3Choice of study designs explainedNoNoyes
4Comprehensive literature searchcriticalPartial YesPartial Yesyes
5Study selection in duplicateYesYesyes
6Data extraction in duplicateYesYesyes
7List of excluded studies with reasonscriticalNoNoyes
8Included studies described in detailPartial YesPartial Yesyes
9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycriticalRCT: No · NRSI: Partial YesNRSI: Yes · RCT: Nono
10Funding of included studies reportedNoNoyes
11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscriticalRCT: Partial Yes · NRSI: Partial YesNRSI: No · RCT: Nono
12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled resultsNoNoyes
13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcriticalYesYesyes
14Heterogeneity explainedYesYesyes
15Publication bias investigatedcriticalYesYesyes
16Conflicts of interest reportedYesYesyes
OverallCritically LowCritically Lowyes