World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 3 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2012 ) > List of Articles


Tooth-implant Connection: A Literature Review

Safoura Ghodsi, Sasan Rasaeipour

Citation Information : Ghodsi S, Rasaeipour S. Tooth-implant Connection: A Literature Review. World J Dent 2012; 3 (2):213-219.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1159

License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; The Author(s).



The aim of this review is to summarize and discuss the available information concerning the connection between the tooth and implant in a fixed partial denture.


Although implant-supported prosthesis (ISP) has substantial biological and biomechanical advantages, due to the extensive use of implant in partially edentulous patients, encounter to cases of obligatory connection between the tooth and implant is not rare. However, because of their differences, especially in support mechanism, long-term prognosis of this treatment method is a special debate in dental literature.

Materials and methods

The literature published over the past 25 years was searched through PubMed, Medline, Google and indexed journals (search terms: tooth implant connection, tooth implant-supported fixed partial denture, tooth implant splinting, implant and tooth). The most valuable and relevant articles were selected and analyzed.

Results and discussion

The existing studies reveal that there are certain conditions in which this method is applicable. The main advantage of the method based on literature reviewed is reducing the need to the removable prosthesis in patients that otherwise require it. The disadvantages of this connection, mainly due to different movement range of components under loading, reportedly will be minimized if some guidelines are followed.

Clinical significance

According to available studies, this literature review supports tooth-implant connection technique where indicated, with complete attention to prudent guidelines. Further researches preferably concentrating on new methods and also long-term longitudinal studies are certainly needed before this approach can be widely used.

How to cite this article

Ghodsi S, Rasaeipour S. Tooth-implant Connection: A Literature Review. World J Dent 2012;3(2):213-219.

PDF Share
  1. Connecting teeth to implants: The truth about a debated technique. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140(5):587-93.
  2. State of the science on implant dentistry: A workshop developed using an evidence-based approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22(Suppl):7-10.
  3. Mechanical aspects of a Brånemark implant connected to a natural tooth: An in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6(2):177-86.
  4. Biomechanics of the Brånemark system. Aust Prosthodont J 1995;9(Suppl):39-48.
  5. Free-standing vs tooth-connected implant supported partial fixed restorations: A comparative retrospective clinical study of the prosthetic results, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1994;9:711-18.
  6. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of the survival rate of osseointegrated fixtures supporting fixed partial prostheses in the treatment of partial edentulism. J Prosthet Dent 1989 Feb;61(2):217-23.
  7. A comparison of the stress transfer characteristics of a dental implant with a rigid or a resilient internal element. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62: 586-93.
  8. Freestanding and tooth-implant connected prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients. Part I: An up to 15-year clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(3):237-44.
  9. Connecting implants to teeth. Br Dent J 2006;201(10):629-32.
  10. Contemporary implant dentistry (3rd ed). Mosby Elsevier; 2008; Ch. 12.:258-64.
  11. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16(1):26-35.
  12. Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: Current status. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139(10):1354-63.
  13. Yi-Bing Implant occlusion: Biomechanical considerations for implant-supported prostheses. J Dent Sci 2008;3(2):65-74.
  14. Evidence-based decision-making: Implants versus natural teeth. Dent Clin North Am 2006;50(3):451-61.
  15. Teeth and implants. Br Dent J 1999;187(4):183-88.
  16. Tooth-implant and implant-supported fixed partial dentures: A 10-year report. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12(3):216-21.
  17. Technical and biological complications/failures with single crowns and fixed partial dentures on implants: A 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16(3):326-34.
  18. Prospective investigation of the single-crystal sapphire endosteal dental implant in humans: Ten-year results. J Oral Implantol 1995;21(1):8-18.
  19. Should we extract teeth to avoid tooth-implant combinations? J Oral Rehabil 2008;35 Suppl 1:44-54.
  20. 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(6):643-53.
  21. A prospective 3-year study of fixed bridges linking Astra Tech ST implants to natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16(3):302-07.
  22. Retrospective evaluation of complete-arch fixed partial dentures connecting teeth and implant abutments in patients with normal and reduced periodontal support. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(4):313-20.
  23. Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(1): 26-34.
  24. Tooth-implant supported fixed prostheses: A retrospective multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(4):321-28.
  25. Survival and complication rates of combined tooth-implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(5):506-11.
  26. Implants in partially edentulous patients. A longitudinal study of bridges supported by both implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3(2):49-56.
  27. Connecting teeth to implants: A critical review of the literature and presentation of practical guidelines. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2009;30(7):440-53.
  28. Can dental root form implants be successfully bridged to natural teeth? Canadian Journal of Restorative Dentistry and Prosthodontics 2008 Aug;1-2:35-37.
  29. Tooth-implant connection: Some biomechanical aspects based on finite element analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13(3):334-41.
  30. A natural tooth's stress distribution in occlusion with a dental implant. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27(6):538-45.
  31. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part 2: A longitudinal radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13(4):390-95.
  32. Implant-tooth-supported fixed partial prostheses: Correlations between in vivo occlusal bite forces and marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(3):331-36.
  33. Intrusion in implant-tooth-supported fixed prosthesis: An in vitro photoelastic stress analysis. Indian J Dent Res 2008;19(1):6-11.
  34. Strains recorded in a combined tooth-implant restoration: An in vivo study. Implant Dent 2005;14(1):58-62.
  35. Intrusion and reversal of a free-standing natural tooth bounded by two implant-supported prostheses: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92(5): 418-22.
  36. Prospective evaluation of implants connected to teeth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17(4):473-87.
  37. Freestanding and tooth-implant connected prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients Part II: An up to 15-year radiographic evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(3):245-51.
  38. Natural tooth intrusion phenomenon with implants: A survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13(2):227-31.
  39. Intrusion of teeth in the combination implant-to-natural-tooth fixed partial denture: A review of the theories. J Prosthodont 1997;6(4):268-77.
  40. Tooth intrusion in implant-assisted prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(1):39-45.
  41. The phenomenon of natural root intrusion in combined root-form implant cases. Dent Implantol Update 1996;7(5):33-36.
  42. Natural tooth intrusion and reversal in implant-assisted prosthesis: Evidence of and a hypothesis for the occurrence. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70(6):513-20.
  43. Apparent intrusion of natural teeth under an implant supported prosthesis: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70(1):100
  44. Root intrusion in tooth-implant combination cases. Implant Dent 1993;2(2):79-85.
  45. Statistical analyses on the success potential of osseointegrated implants: A retrospective single-dimension statistical analysis. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69(2):176-85.
  46. A clinical evaluation of fixed-bridge restorations supported by the combination of teeth and osseointegrated titanium implants. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13(4):307-12.
  47. Intrusion phenomenon in combination tooth-implant restorations: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80(2):199-203.
  48. A survey of natural tooth abutment intrusion with implant-connected fixed partial dentures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1993;13(4):334-47.
  49. Tooth-implant connection: A bibliographic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010 Mar 1;15(2):387-94.
  50. 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(1):107-17.
  51. Biomechanical aspects of fixed bridgework supported by natural teeth and endosseous implants. Periodontol 2000;1994 Feb;4:23-40.
  52. Biomechanical considerations when combining tooth-supported and implant-supported prostheses. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;78(1):22-27.
  53. Compliant Keeper system replication of the periodontal ligament protective damping function for implants: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80(5):565-69.
  54. An experimental analysis of the stresses on the implant in an implant-tooth-supported prosthesis: A technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12(1):118-24.
  55. Variations in occlusal forces with a resilient internal implant shock absorber. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5(4):369-74.
  56. Photoelastic stress analysis of load transfer to implants and natural teeth comparing rigid and semirigid connectors. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81(6):696-703.
  57. Mechanical properties of a light-polymerizing provisional restorative material with and without reinforcement fibers. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(6):510-14.
  58. A six-year prosthodontic study of 509 consecutively inserted implants for the treatment of partial edentulism. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(2): 236-45.
  59. Finite element analysis of biomechanical interactions of a tooth-implant splinting system for various bone qualities. Chang Gung Med J 2006;29(2): 143-53.
  60. Numerical simulation on the biomechanical interactions of tooth/implant-supported system under various occlusal forces with rigid/non-rigid connections. J Biomech 2006;39(3):453-63.
  61. Intramobile cylinder (IMZ) two-stage osteointegrated implant system with the intramobile element (IME): part I. Its ratinale and procedure for use. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2(4):203-16.
  62. Free-standing versus implant-tooth-interconnected restorations: Understanding the prosthodontic perspective. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1993;13(1):47-69.
  63. The new implant systems: A comparative analysis. Dent Manage 1987;27(6):38-42.
  64. Efficacy of the intramobile connector in implant tooth-supported fixed prostheses: An experimental stress analysis. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9(4):355-61.
  65. An investigation of tooth/implant-supported fixed prosthesis designs with two different stress analysis methods: An in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2007;16(2): 107-16.
  66. 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.
  67. Mechanical interactions of an implant/tooth-supported system under different periodontal supports and number of splinted teeth with rigid and non-rigid connections. J Dent 2006;34(9):682-91.
  68. Use of non-rigid connection between natural teeth and implants to support fixed partial denture. Two years clinical evaluation. Saudi Dental Journal 1996;8(2):96-99.
  69. The influence of bone mechanical properties and implant fixation upon bone loading around oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9(6): 407-18.
  70. Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in partially edentulous patients: A systematic review of the literature and a case report. J Oral Implantol 2010 Nov 12. [Epub ahead of print]
  71. The Tooth-Implant Connection: A Review. J Oral Implantol 2011 Jul 22.
  72. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 2007 Jun;18(Suppl 3): 97-113.
  73. Implant versus tooth-implant supported prostheses in the posterior maxilla: A 2-year report. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(5):441-49.
  74. 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(4):340-46.
  75. Tooth-and implant-supported prostheses: A retrospective clinical follow-up up to 8 years. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(6):575-81.
  76. Therapeutic biomechanics concepts and clinical procedures to reduce implant loading. Part II: Therapeutic differential loading. J Oral Implantol 2001;27(6):302-10.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.