Background: Partial edentulism presents an ongoing clinical challenge, and the optimal choice of prosthetic rehabilitation remains a topic of debate. Purpose: This review compares three abutment configurations for removable dentures—natural teeth, implants, and mixed support. The goal was to determine which treatment offers the best longevity, lowest complication rates, and highest survival. Materials and Methods: A systematic search following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and the PICO framework was conducted using PubMed and Scopus, focusing on clinical studies of IARPDs published between 2022 and 2024. Studies were selected based on predefined eligibility criteria. Descriptive analysis of survival and complication outcomes was performed and represented graphically. Results: Nineteen studies were included: four on IARPDs, six on conventional RPDs, and five on IODs. Main parameters included prosthesis survival, abutment (tooth/implant) survival, and complication rates. IARPDs showed favorable implant survival and lower rates of abutment tooth loss than conventional RPDs. Conventional dentures demonstrated lower performance. IODs had the highest survival over mid-term follow-up periods. Discussion: IARPDs demonstrate clinical viability, especially in cases requiring strategic abutment preservation. Although the data are limited by sample size and short follow-up, IARPDs show potential advantages in preserving natural dentition and improving load distribution. Conclusions: IARPDs are a reliable treatment option for partial edentulism, combining implant support with removable versatility. More long-term studies are needed to strengthen current findings, but the existing evidence supports their use in contemporary prosthodontics, in selected cases.
Dinu et al. (Wed,) studied this question.