International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles


To Splint or Not to Splint Tooth and Adjacent Dental Implants: An Overview of Reviews

Amirhossein Fathi, Sara Hashemi, Kiumars Tavakolitafti, Ramin Mosharraf, Seyedeh Farimah Fatemi

Keywords : Adjacent tooth, Dental implants, Nonsplinted restorations, Splinted restorations, Survival rate

Citation Information : Fathi A, Hashemi S, Tavakolitafti K, Mosharraf R, Fatemi SF. To Splint or Not to Splint Tooth and Adjacent Dental Implants: An Overview of Reviews. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023; 13 (4):242-248.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1430

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Purpose: This study has done a nonbiased and comprehensive assessment of the survival rate of splinted and nonsplinted implant restoration from published meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Materials and methods: All the included studies were assessed based on the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. Furthermore, the corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated using a citation matrix for meta-analyses. Studies with low overlap were only included in the final analysis. In the case of a high degree of overlap, the newest higher-quality study was chosen. The “Metaumbrella” package and R software were used to perform the statistical analysis. Result: The original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had an overall CCA of 5%, indicating slight overlap. For quantitative synthesis, three studies with meta-analyses were included, which were of high quality and showed low overlap. The quantitative analysis revealed that splinted restorations have a higher implant survival rate. The ratio of success in splinted implants to nonsplinted implants was 1.13 (p-value = 0.001). Conclusion: Based on the findings of this umbrella review, splint restorations have a higher survival rate. This overview review suggests that splinting implants to adjacent tooth is an affordable and effective solution for treating partially edentulous patients.

  1. Grossmann Y, Finger IM, Block MS. Indications for splinting implant restorations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63(11):1642–1652. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.149
  2. Al Amri MD, Kellesarian SV. Crestal bone loss around adjacent dental implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted fixed restorations: a systematic literature review. J Prosthodont 2017;26(6):495–501. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12556
  3. Burak Özcelik T, Ersoy E, Yilmaz B. Biomechanical evaluation of tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with various nonrigid connector positions: a finite element analysis. J Prosthodont 2011;20(1):16–28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00654.x
  4. Naert IE, Duyck JA, Hosny MM, et al. Freestanding and tooth-implant connected prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients part II: an up to 15-years radiographic evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(3):245–251. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003245.x
  5. Guichet DL, Yoshinobu D, Caputo AA. Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(5):528–535. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.124589
  6. Wang TM, Leu LJ, Wang J, et al. Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: a numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17(2):231–237. PMID: 11958406.
  7. Clelland N, Chaudhry J, Rashid RG, et al. Split-mouth comparison of splinted and nonsplinted prostheses on short implants: 3-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(5):1135–1141. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4565
  8. 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(2):230–234. PMID: 8206560.
  9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(4):264–269. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
  10. Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ 2022;378:e070849. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070849
  11. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, et al. Chapter 10: umbrella reviews. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis 2020. DOI: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-11
  12. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225–234. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
  13. Pieper D, Antoine SL, Mathes T, et al. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67(4):368–375. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007
  14. Gosling CJ, Solanes A, Fusar-Poli P, et al. Metaumbrella: the first comprehensive suite to perform data analysis in umbrella reviews with stratification of the evidence. BMJ 2023;26(1). DOI: 10.1136/bmjment-2022-300534
  15. Fusar-Poli P, Radua J. Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid Based Ment Health 2018;21(3):95–100. DOI: 10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014
  16. Shah AH, Patel P, Trivedi A, et al. A comparison of marginal bone loss, survival rate, and prosthetic complications in implant-supported splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2022;22(2):111–121. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_365_21
  17. Kadkhodazadeh M, Amid R, Moscowchi A, et al. Short-term and long-term success and survival rates of implants supporting single-unit and multiunit fixed prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2023;S0022-3913(23)00008-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.12.012
  18. de Souza Batista VE, Verri FR, Lemos CA, et al. Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(1):41–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.004
  19. Afrashtehfar KI, Katsoulis J, Koka S, et al. Single versus splinted short implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021;122(3):303–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2020.08.013
  20. Oliva J, Oliva X, Oliva JD. One-year follow-up of first consecutive 100 zirconia dental implants in humans: a comparison of 2 different rough surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22(3):430–435.
  21. Freitas da Silva EV, Dos Santos DM, Sonego MV, et al. Does the presence of a cantilever influence the survival and success of partial implant-supported dental prostheses? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33(4):815–823. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6413
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.