Article

The randomized shortened dental arch study: 5-year maintenance.

Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Journal of dental research (Impact Factor: 4.14). 07/2012; 91(7 Suppl):65S-71S. DOI: 10.1177/0022034512447950
Source: PubMed

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).

0 Bookmarks
 · 
75 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review examined differences in functional outcomes and patient satisfaction when shortened dental arches are left untreated compared to their restoration to complete arch lengths with different prosthodontic interventions.
    PLoS ONE 07/2014; 9(7):e101143. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two different tooth replacement strategies for partially dentate older patients, namely partial removable dental prostheses (RDP) and functionally orientated treatment based on the shortened dental arch concept (SDA). Ninety-two partially dentate older patients completed a randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients were randomly allocated to two treatment groups: the RDP group and the SDA group. Treatment effect was measured using impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHrQOL), and the costs involved in providing and maintaining care were recorded for all patients. Patients were followed for 12 months after treatment intervention. All treatment was provided by a single operator. The total cost of achieving the minimally important clinical difference (MID) in OHrQOL for an average patient in the RDP group was €464.64. For the SDA group, the cost of achieving the MID for an average patient was €252.00. The cost-effectiveness ratio was therefore 1:1.84 in favour of SDA treatment. With an increasingly ageing population, many patients will continue to benefit from removable prostheses to replace their missing natural teeth. From a purely economic standpoint, the results from this analysis suggest that the treatment of partially dentate older adults should be focused on functionally orientated treatment because it is simply more cost-effective.
    Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology 11/2013; · 1.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this multi-center, randomized controlled trial was to assess the impact of missing posterior support on the risk for temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain by comparing patients with either shortened dental arches (SDA) or molar replacement by removable dental prostheses (RDP). A sample of 215 patients with bilateral molar loss in at least one jaw was consecutively recruited in 14 prosthodontic departments of dental schools in Germany. Of the initial sample, 152 patients (mean age: 59.7 years; 53.9 % female) received randomly allocated interventions (SDA: n = 71; RDP: n = 81). Presence of TMD pain was assessed using patients' self-reports and was verified by physical examination and by pain intensity, as the mean of current pain, worst pain, and average pain in the last 6 months, with 10-point ordinal rating scales. Assessments were performed before treatment and at follow-ups until 60 months after treatment. Impact of interventions on TMD risk and pain intensity was computed by applying logistic and linear random-intercept models. Tooth replacement (RDP) did not significantly change the risk for self-reported (odds ratio [OR]: 1.1; confidence interval [CI]: 0.4 to 3.4) or clinically verified (OR: 0.7; CI: 0.1 to 4.3) TMD pain compared to no tooth replacement (SDA). Mean characteristic pain intensity was virtually identical in both groups (Coeff: 0.01; CI: -0.30 to 0.32). Retaining or preservation of an SDA is not a major risk factor for TMD pain over the course of 5 years when compared to molar replacement with RPDs. Seemingly, missing molars do not have to be replaced in order to prevent TMD pain.
    Clinical Oral Investigations 01/2014; · 2.20 Impact Factor