Background:. Implants luted to natural teeth are thought to be an effective kind of therapy when there is anatomical restriction on implant area or when an implant fails to osseointegrate, However, research has shown that in FPDs that are based on luting of implants and teeth, there is a noticeable marginal loss of bone and possibility of loss of osseointegration, particularly in FPDs that resemble real teeth. Evaluations of the long-term outcomes of FPDs based on luting of natural teeth with implants are scarce. Aim: To conduct a thorough assessment of the literature on the frequency of physiological and technical issues in addition to frequency of long term survival of implants luted to natural tooth during the course of more than five years of monitoring. Methods and Materials: Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, Global Health, PsycINFO, etc. were searched thoroughly using the combination of phrases ― dental implant luted to natural tooth, survival rates, FPDs based on natural tooth luted to dental implants, success rates, survival rates with Extensive searches were performed for all publications using inclusion and exclusion criteria.in the range of June 28th, 2018 and February 28th, 2024. Every study was assessed properly and following data were extracted from each study: authors,total duration of exposure (months) ,number of failures of dental implants,approximated five year survival rate (percentage),approximated ten year survival rate (percentage), approximated failure rate (per 100 years) (percentage) Results: For this comprehensive assessment, 19 articles were chosen. The overall 10 year survival rate ranged between 64.74% to 100%, while it ranged between 75.75% and 100% for 10 year survival rate. The percentage of implant failure varied from 9.53 % to 0 percent.After five years and ten years, the average anticipated implant failure rate was 1.89 percent and 1.97 percent. respectively. 1.6 percent of all implants on average were found to have lost material before they could be functionally loaded. 7.4 percent of the implants lost their functionality while they were in use. After five years and ten years, respectively, tooth luted implant supported FPDs had a projected rate of failure of 1.08 percent and 2.51 percent. Conclusion: On comparing results with only implant supported FPDS, the failure rate was greater in implant luted tooth supported FPDS. However, in clinical situations (i.e., decreased bone volume, particularly in posterior edentulous locations where only a single implant can be put) when the luting of a dental implant with natural tooth to support an FPD appears unavoidable, a solid connection should be made by the two different abutments. Ultimately, additional carefully planned longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of FPDs with combined tooth and implant support.