RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of implant-supported in comparison to tooth-supported full-arch prostheses in patients with stage IV periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic electronic search (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/SCOPUS) up to March 2020 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort-like studies comparing/evaluating fixed full-arch rehabilitation on teeth or implants in patients with stage IV periodontitis. The primary outcome measure was loss of teeth/implants and restorations. Data extraction was performed to create evidence tables, and meta-analyses were carried out as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies (31 publications) were identified but none addressed the scientific question in a controlled and randomized design. The risk of bias throughout the included studies was judged to be high, and meta-analyses demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity. Mean-weighted observation periods in studies on tooth-supported restorations were significantly longer than in studies on implant-supported restorations. The predicted loss of teeth and tooth-supported full-arch restorations over 10 years was 1% and 5%, respectively. The 15-year estimates were 10% and 13%. Corresponding predictions for implants and implant-supported restorations for 10 years amounted to 4% and 6%, respectively. Technical complications were the most commonly reported and affected 8% of tooth-supported restorations (during 7.2 years) and 42% of implant-supported structures (during 2.6 years). Peri-implantitis- or peri-implantitis-like symptoms were observed at an estimated 9% of implants (after 3.1 years). CONCLUSIONS: Based on observational studies on full-arch rehabilitation of stage IV periodontitis patients, 10-year estimates of tooth loss were lower than the corresponding estimates for implants. Estimated loss of tooth- and implant-supported restorations at 10 years was similar. Technical complications were more prevalent at implant-supported when compared to tooth-supported restorations.
