4.6 Article

Non-Precious Metal Alloy Double Crown-Retained Removable Partial Dentures: A Cross-Sectional In Vivo Investigation

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 15, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15176137

关键词

removable partial denture; removable dental prosthesis; non-precious metal alloy; telescopic crown; patient satisfaction; patient-reported outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients restored with non-precious metal alloy double crown-retained removable partial dentures (NP-D-RPDs). The results showed that non-precious metal alloy partially veneered NP-D-RPDs are an efficient alternative to precious metal alloy RPDs with excellent patient-reported outcomes.
(1) Background: An alternative material to precious metal alloys are non-precious metal alloys. The material properties of these are different and, therefore, their clinical, biological and mechanical behaviors may also differ. Hence, the purpose of this in vivo investigation was to analyze the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients restored with non-precious metal alloy double crown-retained removable partial dentures (NP-D-RPDs). (2) Methods: Partially edentulous patients were restored with non-precious metal alloy partially veneered NP-D-RPDs. Survival rates, success rates, failures and patient-reported outcomes were investigated and statistically evaluated. (3) Results: A total of 61 patients (65.6 +/- 10.8 years) were included and clinically and radiographically examined. The mean follow-up time was 25.2 +/- 16.5 months. In total, 82 NP-D-RPDs and 268 abutment teeth were examined. The overall survival rate of the NP-D-RPDs was 100% after a mean follow-up time of 2.1 years. The overall success rate was 68.3%. The overall satisfaction with the NP-D-RPDs was 94.3%. (4) Conclusions: Non-precious metal alloy partially veneered NP-D-RPDs seem to be an efficient alternative to precious metal alloy RPDs with excellent patient-reported outcomes.

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

4.6
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