4.7 Article

The Randomized Shortened Dental Arch Study: 5-year Maintenance

Journal

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 91, Issue 7, Pages S65-S71

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022034512447950

Keywords

randomized clinical trial; prosthodontics; removable partial dental prosthesis; fixed partial dental prosthesis; complication rate; maintenance

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Association) [DFG WA 831/2-1, DFG WA 831/2-2, DFG WA 831/2-3, DFG WA 831/2-4, DFG WA 831/2-5, DFG WA 831/2-6, DFG WO 677/2-1.1]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG WO 677/2-1.2, DFG WO 677/2-1.3, DFG WO 677/2-1.4, DFG WO 677/2-1.5, DFG WO 677/2-1.6, DFG WO 677/2-1.7, DFG WO 677/2-1.8, DFG WO 677/2-1.9, DFG WO 677/2-2.0, DFG WO 677/2-2.1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The scientific evidence concerning prosthodontic care for the shortened dental arch (SDA) is sparse. This randomized multicenter study aimed to compare two common treatment options: removable partial dental prostheses (RPDPs) for molar replacement vs. no replacement (SDA). One of the hypotheses was that the follow-up treatment differs between patients with RPDPs and patients with SDAs during the 5-year follow-up period. Two hundred and fifteen patients with complete molar loss in one jaw were included in the study. Molars were either replaced by RPDPs or not replaced according to the SDA concept. A mean number of 4.2 (RPDP) and 2.8 (SDA) treatments for biological or technical reasons occurred during the 5-year observation time per patient. Concerning the biological aspect, no significant differences between the groups could be shown, whereas treatment arising from technical reasons was significantly more frequent for the RPDP group. When the severity of treatment was analyzed, a change over time was evident. When, at baseline, only follow-up treatment with minimal effort is required, over time there is a continuous increase to moderate and extensive effort observed for both groups (Controlled-trials.com number ISRCTN97265367).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available