Comparative Clinical Study of Three-Unit Fixed Partial Prostheses Supported by Two or Three Implants

Abstract

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 3‐unit fixed dental prostheses: Are the results of 2 abutment implants comparable to the results of 2 abutment teeth?

“…Of the 66 publications included for analysis, 24 articles reported on a total of 765 implant‐supported 3‐unit FDP distributed over 27 groups of patients (Tables ) …”

“…The 3‐unit FDP, supported by 2 implants, is a common type of restoration for replacement of multiple missing teeth . The design is derived from the 3‐unit FDP with 2 natural abutment teeth that is commonly used to replace 1 missing tooth .…”

“…4,5 The 3-unit FDP, supported by 2 implants, is a common type of restoration for replacement of multiple missing teeth. 6 The design is derived from the 3-unit FDP with 2 natural abutment teeth that is commonly used to replace 1 missing tooth. 7 However, there are biological and technical differences between the implant-retained and tooth-retained designs.…”

Comparison of three different types of implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses: A long‐term retrospective study of clinical outcomes and cost‐effectiveness

“…The present study presents a clear perspective of the perceivably comparable treatment choice in the aforementioned clinical scenario, addressing all the clinical variables, including patient‐related outcomes such as the associated finances, to provide clinicians with objective criteria when selecting the most appropriate therapy. The design of the present study is slightly different from that completed by Eliasson and coworkers (Eliasson et al, ; Yi et al, ), since we focused our attention on the posterior region and we included three distinct study groups (SC, ISB, and NSC).…”

“…Literature comparing the rehabilitation of 3‐unit edentulous areas in the posterior maxilla or mandible using two versus three implants remains scarce (Eliasson et al, ; Yi, Lee, & Kim, ). In addition, no previous article has evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of each therapeutic approach yet.…”