Review Article http://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijashnb.2019.001 IP Indian Journal of Anatomy and Surgery of Head, Neck and Brain, January-March 2019;5(1):1-12 1 Tooth implant supported prosthesis versus implant supported prosthesis- A review of literature and our experience B. K. Biswas 1,* , B. Das 2 , A. Saha 3 , Rahul Paul 4 1 CEO, 1-4 avinash institute of craniofacial and reconstructive surgery, Kolkata, West Bengal India *Corresponding Author: B. K. Biswas Email: doc135798@yahoo.co.in Abstract Connection of a tooth to an implant by means of prosthesis has always been debatable. The aim of this review is to summarize and discuss the available information and our experience regarding the connection between tooth and implant in fixed partial denture.Thirty four articles related to survival of implant supported prosthesis (ISP) and tooth implant supported prosthesis (TISP), prosthetic options like rigid connector (RC) or non rigid connector (NRC) and complications such as intrusion of teeth were selected and analysed in order to get some outcome. In addition to this, we addressed some of the issues such as advantages, disadvantages, potential risks while fabricating teeth implant supported prosthesis and also drew few recommendations to gain and facilitate enhanced success rate with teeth implant supported prosthesis. Keyword: Tooth implant, Implant supported prosthesis. Introduction Implant supported prostheses are gaining popularity day by day amongst the clinicians due to its long term success rate for the treatment of both partial and completely edentulous patients. However, the acceptance of tooth- implant supported prosthetic restoration still remains inconclusive due to lack of proper evidence based literatures. Implant-tooth supported fixed prostheses are not only preferred by the implantologists, rather it becomes a necessity in some clinical conditions where curtailment of cost factor and reduction of the use of cantilever are high priorities. Findings of some studies are accordant with the fact that implant-tooth connection is beneficial and the success rate is satisfactory. 1-3 Some clinicians are still in dilemma of splinting tooth and implant due to some potential complications like intrusion of teeth, more stress on teeth, bone loss around implants and increased chances of fracture of either tooth or implant. 4 Therefore, this article aims to assess and evaluate the data of various studies which have been interpreted that teeth should not be joined with implant and analyse the literature to determine if evidence based decisions could be made concerning the utility of connecting teeth to dental implants. Material and Methods The literature published and articles related to teeth implant supported prosthesis and implant supported prosthesis identified from hand and electronic searches (PubMed, Google Scholar) clinical, laboratory, biomechanical, computer generated and review studies were included. Review of Literature A literature review related to survival rate of TISP and ISP are shown in a tabular format (Table 1) mentioning the number of cases, duration of study, survival rate of implant and bone loss around implants between TISP and ISP for better understanding. Table 1: Review of Literature Authors Observations Number of cases Durationof study Conclusion Fugazzotto et al 5 1206 3 year to 14 years Survival rate 100%, TISP functioned well without complication Lindh et al 6 127 Up to 3 years TISP as predictable as ISP for bone level and implant survival (95.4%) Naert et al 7 123 Up to 15 years Survival rate ISP (98.4%), TISP (94.9%) Niekenig et al 8 84 2.2 years to 3.3 years TISP(97.7%) as similar to ISP Quirynen et al 9 58 Up to 6 years TISP Survival rate not reported Less than 2.5% of ISP failed,limited bone loss around implants Block et al 10 60 5 years Survival rate 90%, six abutments were lost. Rigid is better than non-rigid, No difference in bone loss around implants