Background: Bruxism is a common parafunctional habit occurring during both sleep and wakefulness. Usually it causes little serious effect. The etiology is multifactorial. Several studies were conducted for articles using the term Bruxism and prosthetic Treatment. Since the literature on such broad subjects would be abundant. Based on findings from available researches on Bruxism and prosthetic treatment, an attempt was made to draw conclusions about a possible relationship between the two and its clinical relevance. Materials and Methods: The patients included in this study were one hundred eighty. All of these patients were examined for the purpose of registering bruxism. The age group ranged from (49–72) years with mixed gender. Thirty of these patients were not wearing dental prostheses. The other one hundred fifty patients found wearing dental prostheses who wore these prostheses nine years ago are subdivided into five groups (each group thirty patients); group (A) patients with removable partial dentures, group (B) patients with implant supported and Implant retained prostheses, group (C) patients with Metal Ceramic fixed dental prostheses, group (D) patients with complete dentures, and group (E) patients with gold acrylic constructions. Aim of Study: To observe the Relation between bruxism and prosthetic treatment including fixed and Removable prostheses and implant - supported and implant-retained prostheses. Results: The statistical analyses showed no significant difference between the wearing and non-wearing prostheses patients regarding the registration of bruxism (p-value = 0.057). The results had shown that there was a significant increase in the registration of bruxism in patients wearing metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (p-value = 0.01) and patients wearing gold acrylic prostheses (p-value = 0.04), respectively on compared to the non-prostheses wearers. The results also showed non-significant increase in the registration of bruxism in patients wearing implant-supported (retained) prostheses (p-value = 0.08) and complete dentures (p-value = 0.16), respectively on compared to the non-prostheses wearers. The results showed no significant difference for bruxism registration in patients wearing removable partial dentures (p-value = 0.5). Conclusions: Bruxism may be included among the Risk factors and is associated with increased mechanical and /or technical complications in prosthodontic rehabilitation although it seems not to affect implant survival. When prosthetic intervention is indicated in a patient with Bruxism efforts should be made to reduce the effect of likely heavy occlusal loading on all the components that contribute to prosthetic structural integrity. Failure to do so may indicate earlier failure than is normal. There is no known treatment to stop Bruxism, including prosthetic treatment. As informed by the present clinical study the Relationship between Bruxism and prosthetic treatment is one that relates mainly to the effect of the former on the latter.