Evaluating the Long-Term Success of Removable and Fixed Prosthodontic Treatment in Completely Edentulous Patients: Comparative Clinical- Radiographic Study.
{"title":"Evaluating the Long-Term Success of Removable and Fixed Prosthodontic Treatment in Completely Edentulous Patients: Comparative Clinical- Radiographic Study.","authors":"A Sharma, P Rawat, P A Srivastava, A Sharma","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2765Sharma09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A clinician must choose the right treatment modality with various fixed and removable prosthetic treatments available for completely edentulous patients. This systematic review aims to evaluate removable and fixed prosthetic treatment modalities in a completely edentulous patient.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and LILACS and a manual search across reference lists of included studies were done. The study analyzed clinical and radiological outcome for patients with completely edentulous arches, including bone loss, post-prosthetic rehabilitation challenges and hygiene maintenance across removable and permanent treatment options.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2182 articles, which, after the thorough screening process yielded 10 studies for qualitative analysis. The success rates of implant-supported fixed prostheses (IFP) were greater than those of implantsupported overdentures (IOD) and complete dentures (CD), respectively. Nevertheless, there were significant differences in the success criteria across the various treatment options, making it futile to compare the success rates directly.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comparing the fixed and removable treatment modalities for completely edentulous patients regarding successful outcomes is multifaceted and challenging due to the lack of comparable assessments with equivalent follow-up periods and similar outcome criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2765Sharma09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: A clinician must choose the right treatment modality with various fixed and removable prosthetic treatments available for completely edentulous patients. This systematic review aims to evaluate removable and fixed prosthetic treatment modalities in a completely edentulous patient.
Material and methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and LILACS and a manual search across reference lists of included studies were done. The study analyzed clinical and radiological outcome for patients with completely edentulous arches, including bone loss, post-prosthetic rehabilitation challenges and hygiene maintenance across removable and permanent treatment options.
Results: A total of 2182 articles, which, after the thorough screening process yielded 10 studies for qualitative analysis. The success rates of implant-supported fixed prostheses (IFP) were greater than those of implantsupported overdentures (IOD) and complete dentures (CD), respectively. Nevertheless, there were significant differences in the success criteria across the various treatment options, making it futile to compare the success rates directly.
Conclusions: Comparing the fixed and removable treatment modalities for completely edentulous patients regarding successful outcomes is multifaceted and challenging due to the lack of comparable assessments with equivalent follow-up periods and similar outcome criteria.
临床医生必须在各种固定和可移动义肢治疗中选择正确的治疗方式。本系统综述的目的是评估可移动和固定假体的治疗方式在一个完全无牙的病人。材料和方法:综合检索MEDLINE、PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、谷歌Scholar和LILACS,并手动检索纳入研究的参考文献列表。该研究分析了全无牙弓患者的临床和放射学结果,包括骨质流失、修复后的康复挑战以及可移动和永久治疗方案的卫生维护。结果:共纳入2182篇文章,其中经过全面筛选,产生10篇研究进行定性分析。种植支撑固定义齿(IFP)的成功率分别高于种植支撑覆盖义齿(IOD)和全口义齿(CD)。然而,不同治疗方案的成功标准存在显著差异,因此直接比较成功率是徒劳的。结论:由于缺乏同等随访期和类似结果标准的可比评估,比较固定和活动治疗方式对完全无牙患者的成功结果是多方面的和具有挑战性的。
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.