(1) Department of Oral Surgery and Periodontology, Dentistry, Mustansiriyah University , Baghdad, Iraq.
Abstract
Restoring function and esthetic in partial edentulous patients by the use of dental implants or fixed bridges supported by natural teeth is a common practice. The less common is the restoration using implants connected by the same prosthesis with the natural dentition, which has several advantages including: reduction of treatment cost, mobile teeth splint provided by the rigid implants, avoiding cantilever in the design of the prosthesis, decreasing the total implant number needed, and others. The mobility of natural tooth in its socket, and the rigid bone implant connection makes this prosthesis associated with many troubles. Branemark and colleagues recommended not joining implants and teeth by the same prosthesis due to biomechanical contrast. Later, several studies showed better prognosis when connecting implants and teeth in the same prosthesis. This problem of support difference between implant and teeth has been researched by many. The type of connection in the prosthesis supported by teeth and implants like rigid and non-rigid connection is also a matter of debate and still controversial. So, research of published literatures in research engines (google scholar, Pubmed, science direct, & etc...) aiming to carrying out a review involving research addressing the tooth implant connection types, complications, and recommendations or principles for these prostheses. In conclusion of this review, a prosthesis joining natural teeth and implants can be a viable solution with respect to the recommendations emphasized in this research.