The clinical outcome of full arch fixed prostheses vs. full arch telescopic-retained retrievable prostheses supported by implants and natural tooth abutments in periodontally treated patients has been reported by few studies, with controversial results. The objective of this study was to evaluate long-term (15 years) complications of abutment teeth and dental implants in periodontally treated patients, rehabilitated with full arch telescopic-retained retrievable prostheses (TRP)s vs. full arch fixed prostheses (FP)s supported by teeth and implants. After active periodontal therapy (non-surgical and surgical), and implant placement (replacement of hopeless teeth and in edentulous sites), 18 patients were rehabilitated in both dental arches with full arch TRPs, and 17 patients were rehabilitated with full arch FPs. Patients were annually recalled for technical and/or biological complications monitoring. During the 15-year observation period, 29 of 164 (17.6%) implants failed in the TRP group and 26 of 152 (17.1 %) implants in the FP group. Due to progression of periodontal disease, endo-perio untreatable lesion and caries, 22 of 233 abutment teeth were extracted (8.1) % in the TRP group and 23 of 221 (10.4%) abutment teeth were extracted in the FP group. Difference in implant failures and abutment teeth loss between the two groups were found not statistically significant (p >0.05). Poisson regression analysis showed that in both groups, factors such as smoking habits, FMBS>20, number of pockets >6 mm, mean bone loss, and bone loss/age, contribute to tooth and implant failure (p<0.05). In this clinical study, in periodontally treated patients, full arch telescopic-retained retrievable prostheses, and full arch fixed prosthesis, supported by teeth and implants presented comparable long-term results of tooth loss and implant failure, if regular periodontal therapy is implemented.