Relevance of Variations in the Opposing Dentition for the Functionality of Fixed and Removable Partial Dentures: A Systematic Review

Table 4

Longevity of fixed partial dentures.

Study	Intervention	Kennedy Class	Gap width/residual dentition^a	Opposing dentition	Followup in month (Range)	Success rate (%)^b
Randomized controlled trials
Budtz-Jørgensen and Isidor, 1990 [12]	FPD	n/a	RD = 6.9 ± 1.7; GW = 2 − 3 (44.4%); GW = 4 − 5 (25.9%); GW = 9 − 11 (29.7%)	CD	60 ± 0	95.2%
Prospective interventional studies
Balshi et al., 1996 [13]	IFP	III	GW = 1	ND	36 ± 0	97.8%
Carlson and Yontchev, 1996 [14]	FPD	I	RD = 2 ± 0	CD	n/a (36–180)	50.0%
Esquivel-Upshaw et al., 2008 [15]	FPD	III	GW = 1	ND	48 ± 0	86.7%
Romeo et al., 2003 [16]	IFP	I (19.5%); II (80.5%)	GW = 2 (20.8%); GW = 3 (60.4%); GW = 4 (12.5%); GW = 5 (6.3%)	ND/FPD (76%); IFP (24%)	44.5 ± 235 (12–84)	97.2%; 100%
Ueda et al., 1993 [17]	IFP	I (21.4%); II (42.9%); III (7.1%); IV (28.6%)	n/a	ND (37,0%)^b; RPD (29,6%)^b; IFP (33,4%)^b	n/a (6.8–10)	96.2%^c
Retrospective interventional studies
Randow et al., 1986 [19]	FPD	I/II (71.2%); III (28.8%)	n/a	ND/FPD (54.7%); RPD/CD (16.5%); ND/FPD (28.8%)	84 ± 0	75.6%; 78.7%; 92.7%

^aStates number of missing teeth in the respective gap, not the number of patients, as these can show several teeth gaps.
^bPercentage of manufactured prostheses, that were still functional after the defined observation period.
^cData given only for partially edentulous and edentulous patients combined.
CD: complete denture, FPD: fixed partial denture, GW: gap width, IFP: implant-supported fixed prostheses, ND: natural dentition, RD: residual dentition, RPD: removable partial denture, n/a: not available.