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

Table 6

Results on the longevity of fixed and removable prostheses.

Interventions	Fixed; prostheses	Removable; prostheses
Studies	7	2
RCT	1	1
Prospective	5	0
Retrospective	1	1
Questionnaire	0	0
No flaws	1	0
Minor flaws	2	1
Major flaws	4	1
Patient age (a)	55.8 [83,4%^b]	63.4 [100%^b]
Gender (% m)	45.6 [100%^b]	44.2 [100%^b]
Oral hygiene index^a	0.4–1.0 [5.8%^b]	0.4–1.0 [16.7%^b]
Tobacco consumption	0 [10.4%^b]	—
Number of prostheses	463	156
Followup (Mo)	65.9 [100%^b]	95.0 [100%^b]
Drop-outs (%)	7.7 [100%^b]	26.9 [100%^b]
Residual dentition	8.7 [14.9%^b]	7.5 [16.7%^b]
Width of gaps	0.9 [24.5%^b]	—
Kennedy I	7.1%	52.6%
Kennedy II	7.8%	19.8%
Kennedy III	34.6%	9.0%
Kennedy IV	0.9%	1.9%
Kennedy n.a.^c	49.6%	16.7%
Opposing arch ND	16.6%	0%
Opposing arch FPD	2.8%	0%
Opposing arch RPD	0%	39.7%
Opposing arch CD	8.4%	29.5%
Opposing arch n.a.^c	72.2%	30.8%
Functional capability; with ND in OA (%)	86.7^d for FPD {48^e}; (Esquivel-Upshaw et al.,; 2008 [15])
	97.8^d for IFP {36^e}; (Balshi et al.,; 1996 [13])
Functional capability; with ND in OA (%)	95.2^d for FPD {60^e}; (Budtz-Jørgensen; and Isidor, 1990 [12])	100^d{60^e}(Budtz-Jørgensen; and Isidor, 1990 [12])
Functional capability; with ND in OA (%)	100^d for IFP {44.5^e}; (Romeo et al.,; 2003 [16])*

^aSilness and Löe plaque index [30].
^bPercentage of the sample to which results refer to.
^cData in publication could not be evaluated, since several groups were pooled or could not be itemized.
^dPercentage of functional prostheses.
^e(Intermediate) followup in month.
*Results from study with major biometrical flaws.
CD: complete denture, FPD: fixed partial denture, IFP: implant-supported fixed denture, m: male, mo: months, ND: natural dentition, OA: opposing arch, RCT: randomized controlled trial, RPD: removable partial denture, n/a: not available.