Biological complications of removable dental prostheses in the moderately reduced dentition: a systematic literature review
The aim of the present study was a systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis on biological complications of removable prostheses in the moderately reduced dentition.
Materials and methods
A systematic literature search in established medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, SciSearch, Cochrane, FIZ Technik Web) and a hand search of relevant dental journals was conducted. The search terms were relevant MeSH terms, free search terms, and combinations of the two. The search included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies with data on biological complications of removable dental prostheses in the moderately reduced dentition with at least 15 participants, an observation period of at least 2 years, and a drop-out rate of less than 25%. The selection of relevant publications was carried out at the title, abstract, and full-text level by at least two of the authors involved. The publications included were tabulated and analyzed.
Of the original 12,994 matches, 1923 were analyzed by title, 650 by abstract, and 111 according to the full text. A total of 42 publications were ultimately included. The following parameters were evaluated.
Results varied, depending on the observation period, between 0 and 18.1% for clasp-retained removable dental prostheses (RDPs), between 5.5 and 29% for attachment-retained RDPs, and between 5.5 and 51.7% for double crown-retained RDPs.
Results varied, depending on the observation period, between 0 and 32.7% for clasp-retained RDPs, between 1.8 and 29% for attachment-retained RDPs, and between 1.8 and 16.4% for double crown-retained RDPs.
Results varied, depending on the observation period, between 3.5 and 19.2% for clasp-retained RDPs, between 6.9 and 16.4% for attachment-retained RDPs, and between 0.6 and 13.9% for double crown-retained RDPs.
Results varied, depending on the observation period, between 1.7 and 5.3% for clasp-retained RDPs, between 12.7 and 40% for attachment-retained RDPs, and between 0.4 and 4.4% for double crown-retained RDPs.
There were no changes or improvements for clasp-retained RDPs. The better the pre-treatment and supportive care is, the smaller the differences are. For double crown-retained RDPs, a slight increase was found in one study. The results for the parameters probing depth and radiological bone loss were inconclusive.
Gingival recession seemed to be favored by a mandibular sublingual bar. Compared to fixed restorations, removable restorations seemed to be associated with a more pronounced need for dental treatment. Stringent pre-treatment and supportive care reduced the complication rates.
Heterogeneous study designs and data analyses rendered a meta-analysis impossible, so that an evaluation at the highest level of evidence could not be performed.
Within the limitations of this study, it would be correct to state that removable dental prostheses require intensive maintenance. Suitable pre-treatment and supportive care can lower the complication rates, in the absence of which they constitute trigger factors for (additional) biological complications.
KeywordsRDP Removable dental prosthesis Removable partial denture Biological complications Systematic review Meta-analysis
This study was funded by the German Society of Dental, Oral, and Craniomandibular Sciences (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not include any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
There was no need to obtain informed consent, as no individual participants were involved in this study.
- 7.Mock FRSH, Stark HK (2005) Eine klinische Langzeitstudie zur Bewährung von Teleskopprothesen. Success of telescopic crowns - a prospective long-term study. Dtsch Zahnaerztl Z 60(3):148–153Google Scholar
- 10.Walter MH, Hannak W, Kern M, Mundt T, Gernet W, Weber A, Wostmann B, Stark H, Werner D, Hartmann S, Range U, Jahn F, Passia N, Pospiech P, Mitov G, Bruckner J, Wolfart S, Busche E, Luthardt RG, Heydecke G, Marre B (2013) The randomized shortened dental arch study: tooth loss over five years. Clin Oral Investig 17(3):877–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0761-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Kapur KK (1989) Veterans administration cooperative dental implant study--comparisons between fixed partial dentures supported by blade-vent implants and removable partial dentures. Part II: comparisons of success rates and periodontal health between two treatment modalities. J Prosthet Dent 62(6):685–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Walter MH, Weber A, Marre B, Gitt I, Gerss J, Hannak W, Hartmann S, Heydecke G, Huppertz J, Jahn F, Ludwig A, Mundt T, Kern M, Klein V, Pospiech P, Stumbaum M, Wolfart S, Wostmann B, Busche E, Boning K, Luthardt RG (2010) The randomized shortened dental arch study: tooth loss. J Dent Res 89(8):818–822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Wolfart S, Marre B, Wostmann B, Kern M, Mundt T, Luthardt RG, Huppertz J, Hannak W, Reiber T, Passia N, Heydecke G, Reinhardt W, Hartmann S, Busche E, Mitov G, Stark H, Pospiech P, Weber A, Gernet W, Walter MH (2012) The randomized shortened dental arch study: 5-year maintenance. J Dent Res 91(7 Suppl):65S–71S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512447950 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Rehmann P (2006) Retrospektive Longitudinalstudie über die langfristige Bewährung von Teleskopprothesen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Instandhaltungskosten. Dtsch Zahnaerztl Z (8): 403-409Google Scholar
- 30.Heydecke G (2003) Longitudinale klinische Studie zur Bewährung von Teilprothesen mit Feder-Riegel-Geschieben - 5-Jahres-Daten. Dtsch Zahnaerztl Z (4):212-218Google Scholar
- 34.Nickenig A (1995) Langzeitbewährung von Teleskop-Prothesen. Dtsch Zahnaerztl Z (50): 753-755Google Scholar