4.7 Article

The Randomized Shortened Dental Arch Study: 5-year Maintenance

期刊

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
卷 91, 期 7, 页码 S65-S71

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022034512447950

关键词

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

资金

  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]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据