The Randomized Shortened Dental Arch study (RaSDA): design and protocol.

Clinic of Prosthetic Dentistry, Ulm University, University Hospital, Department of Dentistry, Ulm, Germany.
Trials (Impact Factor: 2.12). 02/2010; 11:15. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-15
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Various treatment options for the prosthetic treatment of jaws where all molars are lost are under discussion. Besides the placement of implants, two main treatment types can be distinguished: replacement of the missing molars with removable dental prostheses and non-replacement of the molars, i.e. preservation of the shortened dental arch. Evidence is lacking regarding the long-term outcome and the clinical performance of these approaches. High treatment costs and the long time required for the treatment impede respective clinical trials.
This 14-center randomized controlled investigator-initiated trial is ongoing. Last patient out will be in 2010. Patients over 35 years of age with all molars missing in one jaw and with at least both canines and one premolar left on each side were eligible. One group received a treatment with removable dental prostheses for molar replacement (treatment A). The other group received a treatment limited to the replacement of all missing anterior and premolar teeth using fixed bridges (treatment B). A pilot trial with 32 patients was carried out. Two hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled in the main trial where 109 patients were randomized for treatment A and 106 for treatment B. The primary outcome measure is further tooth loss during the 5-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures encompassed clinical, technical and subjective variables. The study is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation, DFG WA 831/2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5).
The particular value of this trial is the adaptation of common design components to the very specific features of complex dental prosthetic treatments. The pilot trial proved to be indispensable because it led to a number of adjustments in the study protocol that considerably improved the practicability. The expected results are of high clinical relevance and will show the efficacy of two common treatment approaches in terms of oral health. An array of secondary outcome measures will deliver valuable supplementary information. If the results can be implemented in the clinical practice, the daily dental care should strongly profit thereof.
The trial is registered at under ISRCTN68590603 (pilot trial) and ISRCTN97265367 (main trial).


Available from: Ralph Gunnar Luthardt, May 29, 2015
  • 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. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0101143 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article is part of a randomized clinical trial on different treatments in the shortened dental arch (SDA). It focused on the abutment tooth prognosis with cantilevered fixed dental prostheses (CFDPs). Sixty-two patients with a bilaterally SDA up to the first or second premolar in the mandible or maxilla were evaluated. In 57 of 124 quadrants, second premolars were replaced by a CFDP (cantilever group). In the remaining 67 quadrants, a natural second premolar was present and thus no need for a CFDP was given (non-cantilever group). Patients were recalled annually up to 5 years. The mean observation period was 56.3 months (min. 3.0, max. 76.2, SD 16.1). Kaplan-Meier survival rates concerning tooth loss and tooth fracture were 93.9%/94.0% in the cantilever group and 91.9%/92.8% in the non-cantilever group. Differences between both groups were not significant. The survival rate concerning loss of retention of CFDP retainers was 92.1% in the cantilever group. After 5 years of clinical service, CFDPs for the replacement of the second premolar showed no negative impact on the abutment tooth prognosis. Clinical Significance: Cantilevered fixed dental prostheses present a viable treatment option in the shortened dental arch without compromising the medium-term abutment tooth prognosis.
    Journal of dentistry 01/2014; 42(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.013 · 2.84 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; 18(9). DOI:10.1007/s00784-014-1188-3 · 2.29 Impact Factor