International journal of dentistry · 2026
Clinical Performance of Posterior Tooth-Supported Cantilevered Prostheses With a Follow-Up of ≥ 3 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ghorbani Pardis, Atieh Momen A, Elbishari Haitham, Alsabeeha Nabeel H M, Amir-Rad Fatemeh
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the survival rate and complications of posterior tooth-supported cantilevered fixed dental prostheses (C-FDPs) over a minimum 3-year observation period.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies were identified by electronic searches in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Two reviewers selected studies on posterior tooth-supported C-FDPs applying the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. Meta-analyses focused on the survival and failure rates of C-FDPs.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included. The survival rates of the C-FDPs were 95.57% over 3 years and 93.45% over 5 years. Premolar- and molar-replacements showed no statistically significant differences in 3 and 5 years (96.24% and 93.82% for premolar- versus 94.49% and 90.98% for molar-replacing prostheses). Maxillary and mandibular replacements had similar survival rates of 96.29% and 93.89% in 3 years and 5 years, respectively. Mesial- and distal-cantilevered prostheses had survival rates of 100% at both time points.
CONCLUSION: Tooth-supported C-FDPs exhibit comparable performance in the maxilla versus the mandible, premolars versus molars, and mesial versus distal abutments, with minimal reported biological and mechanical complications. However, the limited number of studies underscores the need for further high-quality clinical research to validate these results.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies were identified by electronic searches in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Two reviewers selected studies on posterior tooth-supported C-FDPs applying the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. Meta-analyses focused on the survival and failure rates of C-FDPs.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included. The survival rates of the C-FDPs were 95.57% over 3 years and 93.45% over 5 years. Premolar- and molar-replacements showed no statistically significant differences in 3 and 5 years (96.24% and 93.82% for premolar- versus 94.49% and 90.98% for molar-replacing prostheses). Maxillary and mandibular replacements had similar survival rates of 96.29% and 93.89% in 3 years and 5 years, respectively. Mesial- and distal-cantilevered prostheses had survival rates of 100% at both time points.
CONCLUSION: Tooth-supported C-FDPs exhibit comparable performance in the maxilla versus the mandible, premolars versus molars, and mesial versus distal abutments, with minimal reported biological and mechanical complications. However, the limited number of studies underscores the need for further high-quality clinical research to validate these results.