The Randomized Shortened Dental Arch Study: 5-year Maintenance
ABSTRACT 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).
- Journal of dental research 07/2012; 91(7 Suppl):3S-4S. DOI:10.1177/0022034512450712 · 4.14 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Although the shortened dental arch (SDA) concept is a widely accepted strategy to avoid overtreatment, little is known on its impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). This multicenter randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the OHRQoL for removable partial dental prostheses (RPDP) with molar replacement versus the SDA concept. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In both groups, missing anterior teeth were replaced with fixed dental prosthesis. Two hundred fifteen patients with bilateral molar loss in at least one jaw were included. The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) was completed before; 6 weeks (baseline), 6 months, and 12 months after treatment; and thereafter annually until 5 years. RESULTS: Of the initial cohort, 81 patients were assigned to the RPDP group and 71 to the SDA group (age, 34 to 86 years). Before treatment, the median OHIP score was similar in both groups (RPDP, 38.0; SDA, 40.0; n.s.). Results indicate marked improvements in OHRQoL in both groups between pretreatment and baseline (RPDP, 27.0; SDA, 19.0; p ≤ 0.0001) which continued in the RPDP group until the 1-year follow-up (p = 0.0002). These significant reductions in OHIP scores are reflected in its subscales. No further differences were seen within and between groups during the remainder observation period. CONCLUSION: Both treatments show a significant improvement in OHRQoL which continued in the RPDP group until the 1-year follow-up. No significant differences were seen between groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For improving OHRQoL, it is not necessary to replace missing molars with a RPDP.Clinical Oral Investigations 05/2013; 18(2). DOI:10.1007/s00784-013-0991-6 · 2.29 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: To assess sustainability of shortened dental arches (SDA) by determining time to 'first restorative intervention' of teeth and time to 'tooth loss' and comparing these outcomes with complete dental arches (CDA) and SDAs plus removable dental prostheses (RDP). METHODS: Data (follow-up time ranged from 27.4 (SD 7.1) to 35.0 (SD 5.6) years; max. follow up: 45.8 years) from patient records of 59 subjects (23 SDA, 23 CDA, and 13 SDA plus RDP) participating in a prospective cohort study on shortened dental arches (SDA) were analysed. Group effects on survival were analysed using Cox regression models; where appropriate Kaplan-Meier analyses were done. RESULTS: Compared to SDA subjects, CDA subjects had a lower risk to receive a first restorative intervention in anterior teeth (HR=0.377; 95% CI [0.205…0.695]) and premolars (HR=0.470; 95% CI [0.226…0.977]). CDA subjects had a lower risk to lose premolars compared to SDA subjects (HR=0.130; 95% CI [0.053…0.319). Risk for 'first restorative intervention' and for 'tooth loss' did not significantly differ between SDA with and without RDP. CONCLUSIONS: SDA subjects had an increased risk to lose premolars and to receive a first time restoration in anterior teeth and premolars compared to CDA subjects. SDA subjects with RDP had no increased risk to receive a first restorative intervention or for tooth loss compared to SDA without RDP. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Subjects with shortened dental arches can be discerned as enduring at-risk patients. It is therefore recommended that shortened dental arch subjects receive intensive and continuous care to prevent further tooth loss.Journal of dentistry 06/2013; 41(8). DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.013 · 2.84 Impact Factor