ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2019
Full arch fixed prostheses vs. full arch telescopic-retained retrievable prostheses both supported by implants and natural tooth abutments in periodontally treated patients: Results at 15 years.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Retrospective Study of Stabilizing Bridges in Patients With Stages III and IV Periodontitis: Up to 35 Years of Clinical Audit.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Article
- Double Crown-Retained Removable Prostheses Supported by Implants or Teeth and Implants: A Long-Term Clinical Retrospective Evaluation.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical outcome of full arch fixed prostheses vs. full arch telescopic-retained retrievable prostheses supported by implants and natural tooth abutments in periodontally treated patients has been reported by few studies, with controversial results. The objective of this study was to evaluate long-term (15 years) complications of abutment teeth and dental implants in periodontally treated patients, rehabilitated with full arch telescopic-retained retrievable prostheses (TRP)s vs. full arch fixed prostheses (FP)s supported by teeth and implants. MATERIAL AND
methodsAfter active periodontal therapy (non-surgical and surgical), and implant placement (replacement of hopeless teeth and in edentulous sites), 18 patients were rehabilitated in both dental arches with full arch TRPs, and 17 patients were rehabilitated with full arch FPs. Patients were annually recalled for technical and/or biological complications monitoring.
resultsDuring the 15-year observation period, 29 of 164 (17.6%) implants failed in the TRP group and 26 of 152 (17.1 %) implants in the FP group. Due to progression of periodontal disease, endo-perio untreatable lesion and caries, 22 of 233 abutment teeth were extracted (8.1) % in the TRP group and 23 of 221 (10.4%) abutment teeth were extracted in the FP group. Difference in implant failures and abutment teeth loss between the two groups were found not statistically significant (
conclusionsIn this clinical study, in periodontally treated patients, full arch telescopic-retained retrievable prostheses, and full arch fixed prosthesis, supported by teeth and implants presented comparable long-term results of tooth loss and implant failure, if regular periodontal therapy is implemented.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.