Comparative Evaluation Of Periodontal And Peri- Implant Health Around Implant-Supported Versus Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis

Abstract

Background: Long-term success of fixed prosthetic rehabilitation depends on prosthesis survival and maintenance of healthy periodontal and peri-implant tissues. Differences in supporting structures, prosthetic contours, plaque retention, and oral-hygiene accessibility may influence tissue response around implant-supported and tooth-supported fixed prostheses.

Aim: To compare the periodontal and peri-implant status around implant-supported and tooth-supported fixed prostheses in patients at a tertiary care hospital.

Materials and Methods: This hospital-based comparative observational study included 36 patients, divided equally into Group I with implant-supported fixed prostheses and Group II with tooth-supported fixed prostheses. Clinical assessment included plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, gingival/peri-implant mucosal recession, inflammation, suppuration, swelling or tenderness, and mobility. Prosthesis-related variables such as food impaction, marginal adaptation, oral-hygiene accessibility, and prosthetic contour were recorded. Marginal bone status was assessed radiographically. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.0, and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Mean age was 46.78 ± 9.42 years in Group I and 48.61 ± 10.06 years in Group II (p=0.583). Implant-supported prostheses showed significantly lower plaque index (0.82 ± 0.31 vs 1.12 ± 0.36; p=0.011), bleeding on probing (21.70 ± 10.80% vs 34.60 ± 13.40%; p=0.003), probing pocket depth (2.74 ± 0.42 vs 3.18 ± 0.51 mm; p=0.008), recession (0.61 ± 0.29 vs 0.84 ± 0.36 mm; p=0.042), and marginal bone loss (0.78 ± 0.32 vs 1.08 ± 0.41 mm; p=0.020). Clinically evident inflammation was less frequent in Group I (22.22% vs 61.11%; p=0.041), as was food impaction (16.67% vs 55.56%; p=0.035). Marginal bone loss ≤1.00 mm was observed in 72.22% of Group I and 27.78% of Group II (p=0.026).

Conclusion: Implant-supported fixed prostheses were associated with more favorable periodontal and peri-implant tissue conditions than tooth-supported fixed prostheses. Careful prosthetic design, effective plaque control, and regular maintenance remain essential for preserving supporting tissue health.