Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused question: "In partially edentulous patients with periodontitis, are removable dental prostheses (RDPs) more efficacious than no prosthetic treatment, treatment to a shortened dental arch (SDA), or tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed electronically for the period 1966-2020. Two authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk assessment was performed using RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Two retrospective studies indicated that RDPs increased the risk of tooth loss compared to FDPs in patients with a history of periodontitis. Prospective studies found that RDPs could be maintained without any significant periodontal destruction on a long-term basis. Owing to the heterogeneity of the data, no meta-analysis could be performed. Several studies indicated that RDP increased plaque accumulation. RDPs had only a limited effect on masticatory efficiency and nutritional status. RDPs may improve oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), but to a lesser extent compared with that of patients treated to an SDA. CONCLUSIONS: There is no strong evidence that RDPs per se will cause periodontal destruction including tooth loss. RDPs do not inevitably improve masticatory efficiency but improve OHRQoL, although less than for patients treated with FDPs including resin-bonded FDPs.
Gotfredsen et al. (Wed,) studied this question.