Double Crown-Retained Removable Prostheses Supported by Implants or Teeth and Implants: A Long-Term Clinical Retrospective Evaluation

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this retrospective clinical study was to investigate the survival rates and complications of implant (I)-retained or tooth-implant (TI)-retained prostheses and abutments (teeth, implants) over a mean observation period of 11.26 years. The study also aimed to analyze the differences and complication rates between implant-retained double crown removable dental prostheses (I-DC-RDPs) versus tooth-implant-retained double crown removable dental prostheses (TI-DC-RDPs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of 110 nonsmokers (mean age = 53.9 years) who received DC-RDPs in maxillary or mandibular arches. 153 teeth and 508 implants were used to restore partially edentulous (PE; TI-DC-RDPs; n = 53) and completely edentulous (CE; TI-DC-RDPs; n = 57) arches. Two designs of the distal extension were used: cantilevers (CANs) and saddles (SADs). Restorations were examined for abutment survival, mechanical, or biological complications. RESULTS: The 10-year survival rates were 99.3% (95% CI: 95.4–99.9%) for teeth and 99.3% (95% CI: 97.5–99.7%) for implants. The cumulative rates of TI- and I-RDPs free of technical complications were 77% and 86%, respectively. The risk of complications was not significantly different between the CAN and SAD subgroups of I-RDPs (p > 0.05). However, for TI-RDPs, technical complication risk was significantly higher in SAD type compared with CAN restorations (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: I- and TI-DC-RDPs seem to be recommendable for restoration of CE or PE arches. The technical and biological complication rates were lower for I-DC-RDPs in the CE arches than for TI-DC-RDPs in the PE arches. Regarding the RDP design, CAN prostheses produced significantly fewer technical complications than did SAD prostheses.