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: 1.73). 02/2010; 11(1):15. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-15
Source: PubMed


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).

Download full-text


Available from: Ralph Gunnar Luthardt
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Due to the scarce amount of data available, a retrospective analysis of patients treated with removable dental prostheses (RDPs) was performed. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the rate of repairs and failures of attachment-retained RDPs (AR-RDPs) compared to clasp-retained RDPs (CR-RDPs) with respect to cofactors (e.g., type of loading). In this respect, two hypotheses were proposed: AR-RDPs are more prone to repairs than CR-RDPs, and AR-RDPs are more prone to fail than CR-RDPs. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Two hundred three patients treated with 135 AR-RDPs and 68 CR-RDPs between 1994 and 2006 were evaluated in this trial. The dental treatment was carried out in the clinical training course of senior students. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for the primary end point (repairs) and for the secondary end point (failures). RESULTS: The survival of CR-RDPs and AR-RDPs did show significant differences regarding repairs (p = 0.034) but not with regard to failures (p = 0.169). Prostheses of the non-axially loaded group showed no significant differences in the frequency of repairs and failures. CONCLUSIONS: Technical complications occurred more frequently in the CR-RDP group. Taking the higher observation time in the AR-RDP group into account, CR-RDPs are more prone to repairs, especially to those with technical background (e.g., fracture of the metal framework). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of crowns with rod attachments on tilted teeth seems to be an appropriate treatment approach in order to simplify removable dental prosthesis design.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2011 · Clinical Oral Investigations
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess the quality of reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of implant dentistry, its evolution over time and the possible relations between quality items and reported outcomes. RCTs in implant dentistry were retrieved through electronic and hand searches. Risk of bias in individual studies was assessed focusing on study design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance. Associations between quality items and year of publication of RCTs or reporting of statistically significant outcomes were tested. Among the 495 originally screened manuscripts published from 1989 to April 2011, 276 RCTs were assessed in this SR; 59% of them were published between 2006 and 2011. RCTs were mainly parallel (65%), with a single centre (83%) and a superiority design (88%). Trials in implant dentistry showed several methodological flaws: only 37% showed a random sequence generation at low risk of bias, 75% did not provide information on allocation concealment, only 12% performed a correct sample size calculation, the examiner was blind solely in 42% of studies where blinding was feasible. In addition, only 21% of RCTs declared operator experience and 31% reported patient-related outcomes. Many quality items improved over time. Allocation concealment at high risk of bias (p = 0.0125), no information on drop-out (p = 0.0318) and lack of CONSORT adherence (p = 0.0333) were associated with statistically significant reported outcomes. The overall quality of reporting of RCTs in implant dentistry is poor and only partially improved in the last years. Caution is suggested when interpreting these RCTs since risk of bias was associated with higher chance of reporting of statistically significant results.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2012 · Journal Of Clinical Periodontology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A number of different factors contribute to an efficient clinical outcome in prosthetic dentistry. Differences between patient's and prosthodontist's perception of treatment display great variability. Patient satisfaction in prosthetic dentistry is a multidimensional concept as is patient's perception of dental care. Patient satisfaction can be assessed if it is carefully defined. In the prosthodontic treatment context patient satisfaction can be expected to interact with the patient's entire life situation. This article highlights the issues that reflect the different dimensions of patient satisfaction in prosthodontic care.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2012 · The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
Show more