Three‐unit fixed dental prostheses supported by either two abutment implants or two abutment teeth: A comparative retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES: In general, similar restorative constructions are made on natural teeth and on dental implants. The assumption is made that implants and their restoration perform the same as natural roots and their prosthetic restoration. Evaluating cohorts of three‐unit bridges on teeth and on implants, this retrospective clinical study aimed to compare implants and teeth as supporting units, including the reconstructions, in terms of survival, success, clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From an 8‐year period, all patients treated with a posterior three‐unit fixed reconstruction on either implants or teeth, with a follow‐up of at least 2 years, were identified. For each implant‐supported reconstruction, a comparable tooth‐supported reconstruction was selected, based on the length of follow‐up, the material of the reconstruction, and the location in either the maxilla or mandible. RESULTS: For the Implant‐group, 24 patients could be matched with 24 best matching patients with tooth‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs). Supporting implants and implant‐supported reconstructions were all in function with a mean follow‐up of 52 ± 23 months. Two tooth‐supported reconstructions had been replaced (91.7% survival) (mean follow‐up: 52 ± 19 months). Radiographic bone levels and soft tissue conditions were favorable in both groups with minor differences. There was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction. The modified USPHS‐score revealed an 87.5% overall success in the Implant‐group and 91.7% in the Tooth‐group. CONCLUSIONS: Implant‐supported three‐unit FDPs are a reliable treatment option with survival and success rates not significantly different from the results of tooth‐supported three‐unit FDPs.