The Randomized Shortened Dental Arch Study
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
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).
Available from: Dr Saadika Begum Khan
- "Mc Kenna (2012) indicated that the researcher was not involved in the intervention allocation, making it a single-blinded study, thus it is judged as having a low risk of bias –. The Wolfart et al (2005) study indicated that it was impossible to blind the dentist and patient due to discrepancies of the treatments; thus it was judged as having a high risk of bias, whereas Budtz-Jorgensen and Isidor (1987) provided insufficient information related to blinding and it was regarded as having an unclear risk of bias –, –. "
[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.
A protocol was developed according to the criteria for a systematic review. All relevant databases were searched to identify appropriate clinical trials regardless of language or publication status. Predetermined eligibility criteria were applied, trial quality assessed and data extracted for each study. Relevant outcomes assessed were: functioning ability, patient satisfaction and harmful effects on oral structures.
Searches yielded 101 articles: 81 from electronic databases and 20 from reference lists of retrieved articles (PEARLing searches). Sixty-nine citations were assessed for eligibility after removing 32 duplicate records. After reading titles and abstracts, a total of 41 records were excluded and the full-texts of the remaining 28 records were read. Only 21 records were included for the SR because 7 records were excluded after reading the full-text reports. These 21 records report the outcomes of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized clinical trial (CT) which were pre-specified and used for this review. No on-going studies were found and no eligible studies were excluded for failure to report the reviewer’s pre-specified outcomes. Outcomes were reported in the retrieved 21 articles. A narrative explanation of the pre-specified outcomes is reported for the 3 comparison groups (which were based on the different interventions used for the individual clinical trials). The shortened dental arch as a treatment option is encouraging in terms of functioning, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. By using only high quality studies it was expected that the results would be more reliable when making conclusions and recommendations, but some of the included studies had to be downgraded due to methodological errors.
Available from: jdr.sagepub.com
Available from: jdr.sagepub.com
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.