Biological Complications of Removable Dental Prostheses in the Moderately Reduced Dentition: a Systematic Literature Review

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2018 Jul 1

PMID 29959596

Citations 11

Authors

Ovidiu Moldovan

Heike Rudolph

Ralph G Luthardt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Results: 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.

Tooth Loss: 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.

Caries: 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.

Endodontic Treatment: 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.

Tooth Fracture: 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.

Tooth Mobility: 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: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Clinical Relevance: 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.

Citing Articles

Electroplated double-crowns on implants and teeth after up to 12 years- a retrospective clinical study.

Mautsch C, Klenke J, Kern T, Wolfart S, Kern J Int J Implant Dent. 2025; 11(1):9.

PMID: 39899219 PMC: 11790550. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-025-00594-x.

Mid-term survival and complications of double-crown-retained removable dental prostheses placed in the dental practice - a retrospective study.

Klotz A, Hagspiel S, Busch C, Zenthofer S, Rammelsberg P, Zenthofer A Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 29(1):26.

PMID: 39708169 PMC: 11663171. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-06090-7.

New measure of functional tooth loss for successful Oral ageing: a cross-sectional study.

Cheng Y, Cheng L, Zhu F, Xiang Y, Duan S, Luo J BMC Geriatr. 2023; 23(1):859.

PMID: 38102557 PMC: 10722707. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-023-04570-1.

Fit and Retention of Cobalt-Chromium Removable Partial Denture Frameworks Fabricated with Selective Laser Melting.

Rues S, Tasaka A, Fleckenstein I, Yamashita S, Rammelsberg P, Boehm S J Funct Biomater. 2023; 14(8).

PMID: 37623661 PMC: 10456016. DOI: 10.3390/jfb14080416.

Cumulative 10-year performance of endodontically treated teeth with prosthetic restorations of base metal alloy double crowns with friction pins-a retrospective study.

Hinz S, Bomicke W, Bensel T Clin Oral Investig. 2023; 27(8):4411-4423.

PMID: 37212841 PMC: 10415510. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05060-9.

References

Rehmann P, Orbach K, Ferger P, Wostmann B . Treatment outcomes with removable partial dentures: a retrospective analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2013; 26(2):147-50. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.2959. View

Vermeulen A, Keltjens H, vant Hof M, Kayser A . Ten-year evaluation of removable partial dentures: survival rates based on retreatment, not wearing and replacement. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76(3):267-72. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90170-5. View

Behr M, Kolbeck C, Lang R, Hahnel S, Dirschl L, Handel G . Clinical performance of cements as luting agents for telescopic double crown-retained removable partial and complete overdentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 22(5):479-87. View

Studer S, Mader C, STAHEL W, Scharer P . A retrospective study of combined fixed-removable reconstructions with their analysis of failures. J Oral Rehabil. 1998; 25(7):513-26. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00294.x. View

Wagner B, Kern M . Clinical evaluation of removable partial dentures 10 years after insertion: success rates, hygienic problems, and technical failures. Clin Oral Investig. 2001; 4(2):74-80. DOI: 10.1007/s007840050119. View

Walter M, Weber A, Marre B, Gitt I, Gerss J, Hannak W . The randomized shortened dental arch study: tooth loss. J Dent Res. 2010; 89(8):818-22. DOI: 10.1177/0022034510366817. View

Isidor F, Budtz-Jorgensen E . [Periodontal conditions following treatment with cantilever bridges or removable partial dentures in geriatric patients. A 2-year study]. Gerodontics. 1987; 3(3):117-21. View

Schmitt J, Wichmann M, Eitner S, Hamel J, Holst S . Five-year clinical follow-up of prefabricated precision attachments: a comparison of uni- and bilateral removable dental prostheses. Quintessence Int. 2011; 42(5):413-8. View

Wegner P, Freitag S, Kern M . Survival rate of endodontically treated teeth with posts after prosthetic restoration. J Endod. 2006; 32(10):928-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.06.001. View

10.

Shugars D, Bader J, White B, Scurria M, Hayden Jr W, Garcia R . Survival rates of teeth adjacent to treated and untreated posterior bounded edentulous spaces. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129(8):1089-95. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0383. View

11.

Bergman B, Ericson G . Cross-sectional study of patients treated with removable partial dentures with special reference to the caries situation. Scand J Dent Res. 1986; 94(5):436-42. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1986.tb01784.x. View

12.

Besimo C, Gachter M, Jahn M, Hassell T . Clinical performance of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures and extracoronal attachments for removable prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78(5):465-71. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70061-1. View

13.

Muller S, Eickholz P, Reitmeir P, Eger T . Long-term tooth loss in periodontally compromised but treated patients according to the type of prosthodontic treatment. A retrospective study. J Oral Rehabil. 2013; 40(5):358-67. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12035. View

14.

Bergman B, Hugoson A, Olsson C . Caries, periodontal and prosthetic findings in patients with removable partial dentures: a ten-year longitudinal study. J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 48(5):506-14. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(82)90352-3. View

15.

Witter D, de Haan A, Kayser A, van Rossum G . A 6-year follow-up study of oral function in shortened dental arches. Part I: Occlusal stability. J Oral Rehabil. 1994; 21(2):113-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1994.tb01131.x. View

16.

Jepson N, Moynihan P, Kelly P, Watson G, Thomason J . Caries incidence following restoration of shortened lower dental arches in a randomized controlled trial. Br Dent J. 2001; 191(3):140-4. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801122. View

17.

Au A, LECHNER S, Thomas C, Mori T, Chung P . Titanium for removable partial dentures (III): 2-year clinical follow-up in an undergraduate programme. J Oral Rehabil. 2000; 27(11):979-85. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00576.x. View

18.

Kapur K . 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.... J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62(6):685-703. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90594-5. View

19.

Wenz H, Hertrampf K, Lehmann K . Clinical longevity of removable partial dentures retained by telescopic crowns: outcome of the double crown with clearance fit. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14(3):207-13. View

20.

Moldovan O, Rudolph H, Luthardt R . Clinical performance of removable dental prostheses in the moderately reduced dentition: a systematic literature review. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20(7):1435-47. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1873-5. View