Biomechanical Outcomes of Tooth-Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Prostheses (FPPs) in Periodontally Healthy Patients using Root Shape Dental Implants

Download Article

1 / Argirios Pissiotis2

1Postgraduate student, Yerevan State Medical University after Mkhitar Heratsi (YSMU), Armenia
2School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece


Background: Connecting an osseointegrated implant and a natural tooth is a treatment alternative for partially edentulous patients in some clinical situations. The main issue of a connected tooth-implant system is derived from the dissimilar mobility patterns of the osseointegrated fixtures and natural abutments causing potential biomechanical problems within the entire system. Purpose: The aim of this review was to multilaterally analyze and discuss the main biomechanical factors that may question the reliability of splinted tooth-implant system and the long-term success of fixed partial prostheses (FPPs) supported by both teeth and implants with an emphasis on the disparity of mobility of these two different abutments.

Material and methods: An electronic MEDLINE (PubMed) search supplemented by manual searching was performed to retrieve relevant articles. An assessment of the identified studies was performed, the most valuable articles were selected and biomechanical outcomes of tooth-implant splinting system were analyzed.

Results: 3D FEM stress analyses and photoelastic studies show uneven load distribution between the tooth and the implant and stress concentration in the crestal bone around the implant neck when connected to a natural tooth by FPPs. However, clinical studies demonstrate good results for both the implants and FPPs supported by splinted implant-to-tooth abutments.

Conclusion: Connecting implants to natural teeth is not a preferable treatment option because of possible inherent biomechanical complications. Whenever possible, this treatment option should be avoided.

Keywords: Tooth-Implant Supported Prostheses; Natural Tooth; Osseointegrated Dental Implant; Occlusal Force; Finite Element Analysis; Rigid Connector; Non-Rigid Connector


  1. Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl, 1977; 16:1-132.
  2. Ericsson I, Lekholm U, Bränemark PI, Lindhe J, Glantz PO, Nyman S. A clinical evaluation of fixed-bridge restorations supported by the combination of teeth and osseointegrated titanium implants. J Clin Periodontol, 1986; 13:307-312.[Crossref]
  3. Hosny M, Duyck J, Van Steenberghe D, Naert I. Within-subject comparison between connected and nonconnected tooth-to-implant fixed partial prostheses: up to 14-year follow-up study. Int J Prosthodont, 2000; 13:340-346.
  4. Rangert B, Gunne J, Sullivan DY. Mechanical aspects of a Branemark implant connected to a natural tooth: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1991; 6:177-186.
  5. Lindh T, Dahlgren S, Gunnarsson K, Josefsson T, Nilson H, Wilhelmsson P et al. Tooth-implant supported fixed prostheses: a retrospective multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont, 2001; 14:321-328.
  6. Kindberg H, Gunne J, Kronström M. Tooth- and implant supported prostheses: a retrospective clinical follow-up up to 8 years. Int J Prosthodont, 2001; 14:575-581.
  7. Gunne J, Astrand P, Ahlen K, Borg K, Olsson M. Implants in partially edentulous patients. A longitudinal study of bridges supported by both implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1992; 3:49-56.
  8. Astrand P, Borg K, Gunne J, Olsson M. Combination of natural teeth and osseointegrated implants as prosthesis abutments: a 2-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1991; 6:305-312.
  9. Jemt T, Leckholm U, Adell R. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients. A preliminary study on 876 consecutively placed fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1989; 4:211-217.
  10. Mühleman HR. Periodontometry, a method for measuring tooth mobility. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1951; 4:1220-1233.
  11. Cohen SR, Orenstein JH. The use of attachments in combination implant and natural-tooth fixed partial dentures: a technical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1994; 9:230-234.
  12. Naert I, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Darius P. A six year prosthodontic study of 509 consecutively inserted implants for the treatment of partial edentulism. J Prosthet Dent, 1992; 67:236-245.[Crossref]
  13. Richter EJ. Basic biomechanics of dental implants in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent, 1989; 61:602-609.[Crossref]
  14. Lundgren D, Laurell L. Biomechanical aspects of fixed bridgework supported by natural teeth and endosseous implants. Periodontol, 2000 1994; 4:23-40.[Crossref]
  15. Lin CL, Wang JC, Chang WJ. Biomechanical interactions in tooth-implant supported fixed partial dentures with variations in the number of splinted teeth and connector type: a finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2008; 19:107-117.
  16. Nishimura RD, Ochiai KT, Caputo AA, Jeong CM. Photoelastic stress analysis of load transfer to implants and natural teeth comparing rigid and semirigid connectors. J Prosthet Dent, 1999; 81:696-703.[Crossref]
  17. Weinberg LA. The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1993; 8:19-31.
  18. Misch CM, Ismail YH. Finite element stress analysis of tooth-to-implant fixed partial denture designs. J Prosthodont, 1993; 2:83-92.[Crossref]
  19. Chee WW, Mordohai N. Tooth-to-implant connection: a systematic review of the literature and a case report utilizing a new connection design. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2010; 12:122-133.[Crossref]
  20. Rangert B, Gunne J, Glantz PO, Svensson A. Vertical load distribution on a three-unit prosthesis supported by a natural tooth and a single Branemark implant. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1995; 6:40-46.
  21. Chapman RJ, Kirsch A. Variations in occlusal forces with a resilient internal implant shock absorber. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1990; 5:369-374.
  22. Kay HB. Free-Standing versus Implant-Tooth-Interconnected Restorations: Understanding the Prosthodontic Perspective. Int J Periodontics & Res Dent, 1993; 13:47-69.
  23. Hämmerle CHF, Wagner D, Brägger U, Lussi A, Karayiannis A, Joss A et al. Threshold of tactile sensitivity perceived with dental endosseous implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1995; 6:83-90.
  24. Lin CL, Wang JC. Finite Element Analysis of Biomechanical Interactions of a Tooth-Implant Splinting System for Various Bone Qualities. Chang Chung Med J, 2006; 29:143-153.
  25. Naert IE, Duyck JA, Hosny MM, Van Steenberghe D. Freestanding and tooth-implant connected prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients. Part I: an up to 15-years clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2001; 12:237-244.
  26. Lanza MD, Seraidarian PI, Jancen WD, Stress analysis of a fixed implant-supported denture by the finite element method (FEM) when varying the number of teeth used as abutments. J Appl Oral Sci, 2011; 19:655-661.[Crossref]
  27. Skalak R. Aspects of biomechanical considerations. In: Brånemark, P.-I., Zarb, G.A. & Albrektsson, T., eds. Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago:Quintessence, 1985; pp: 117-128.
  28. Menicucci G, Mossolov A, Mozzati M, Lorenzetti M, Preti G. Tooth-implant connection: some biomechanical aspects based on finite element analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2002; 13:334-341.
  29. Michalakis KX, Calvani P, Hirayama. Biomechanical considerations on tooth-implant supported fixed partial dentures. J Dent Biomech, 2012; 3:1758736012462025. doi: 10.1177/1758736012462025.[Crossref]
  30. Bien SM. Hydrodynamic damping of tooth movement. J Dent Res, 1966; 45:907-914.[Crossref]
  31. Sheets CG, Earthman JC. Tooth intrusion in implantassisted prostheses. J Prosthet Dent, 1997; 77:39-45.[Crossref]
  32. Becker CM, Kaiser DA, Jones DJ. Guidelines for splinting implants. J Prosthet Dent, 2000; 84:210-214.[Crossref]
  33. Haraldson T and Carlsson GE. Bite force and oral function in patients with osseointegrated oral implants. Scand J Dent Res, 1977; 85:200-208.
  34. Gunne J, Rangert B, Glantz PO, Svensson A. Functional loads on freestanding and connected implants in three-unit mandibular prostheses opposing complete dentures: an in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1997; 12:335-341.
  35. Akca K, Uysal S, Cehreli MC. Implant–tooth-supported fixed partial prostheses: correlations between in vivo occlusal bite forces and marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2006; 17:331-336.
  36. Richter EJ, Spiekermann H, Jovanovic SA. Tooth-to-implant fixed prostheses: biomechanics based on in vitro and in vivo measurements. In: Laney WR, Tolman DE, eds. Tissue integration in oral, orthopaedic and maxillofacial reconstruction. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co., 1990, pp: 133-139.
  37. Ormianer Z, Brosh T, Laufer BZ, Shifman A. Strains Recorded in a Combined Tooth-Implant Restoration: AnIn Vivo  J Implant Dent, 2005; 14:58-62. [Crossref]
  38. Lang NP, Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. II. Combined tooth–implant-supported FPDs. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2004; 15:643-653.
  39. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Smith R, Tarnow D. Connecting Teeth to Implants: A Critical Review of the Literature and Presentation of Practical Guidelines. Compend Contin Educ Dent, 2009; 30:440-453.
  40. Guven S, Eratilla V. Evaluation of stress distributions in peri-implant and periodontal bone tissues in 3- and 5-unit tooth and implant-supported fixed zirconia restorations by finite elements analysis. Eur J Dent, 2015; 9:329-339.[Crossref]
  41. Wnag JC, Huang SF, Lin CL. Biomechanical Responses of Endodontically Treated Tooth Implant–supported Prosthesis. J Endod, 2010; 36:1688-1692.[Crossref]
  42. Ozawa S, Caputo AA, Nishimura RD, Tanaka Y. Photoelastic evaluation of load transfer to an implant connected to a natural tooth under varying types of periodontal support. J Prosthodont Res Pract, 2006; 5:129-136.[Crossref]
  43. Van Rossen IP, Braak LH, de Putter C, de Groot K. Stress absorbing elements in dental implants. J Prosthet Dent, 1990; 64:198–205.[Crossref]
  44. Mamalis A, Markopoulou K, Kaloumenos K, Analitis A. Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review of the literature. J Oral Implantol, 2012; 38:424-434.[Crossref]
  45. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. I. Implant-supported FPDs. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2004; 15:625–642.
  46. Laufer BZ, Gross M. Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients. Part II: principles and applications. J Oral Rehabil, 1998; 25:69-80.[Crossref]
  47. English CE. Biomechanical concerns with fixed partial dentures involving implants. J Implant Dent, 1993; 2;221-242.[Crossref]
  48. Rieder CE, Parel SM. A survey of natural tooth abutment intrusion with implant-connected fixed partial dentures. Int J Period & Res Dent, 1993; 13:335-347.
  49. Schlumberger TL, Bowley JF, Maze GI. Intrusion phenomenon in combination tooth-implant restorations: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent, 1998; 80:199–203.[Crossref]
  50. Chee WW, Cho GC. A rationale for not connecting implants to natural teeth. J Prosthodont, 1997; 6:7-10.[Crossref]
  51. Mau J, Behneke A, Behneke N, Fritzmeier CU, Gomez Roman G, d’Hoedt B et al. Randomized multicenter comparison of two coatings of intramobile cylinder implants in 313 partially edentulous mandibles followed up for 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2002; 13:477-487.
Citation Information: Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine. Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 1–11, ISSN (Online) 2335-0245, DOI:, March 2017