Search

Objectives: The study was designed to provide clinical outcome data for two treatments of the shortened dental arch (SDA)., Material and Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial, patients with complete molar loss in one jaw were provided with either a partial removable dental prosthesis (PRDP) retained with precision attachments or treated according to the SDA concept preserving or restoring a premolar occlusion. No implants were placed. The primary outcome was tooth loss., Results: Of 152 treated patients, 132 patients reached the 5-year examination. Over 5 years, 38 patients experienced tooth loss. For the primary outcome tooth loss, the Kaplan-Meier survival rates at 5 years were 0.74 (95% CI 0.64, 0.84) in the PRDP group and 0.74 (95% CI 0.63, 0.85) in the SDA group. For tooth loss in the study jaw, the survival rates at 5 years were 0.88 (95% CI 0.80, 0.95) in the PRDP group and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74, 0.93) in the SDA group. The differences were not significant. No Cox regression models of appropriate fit explaining tooth loss on the patient level could be found., Conclusions: The overall treatment goals of a sustainable oral rehabilitation and the avoidance of further tooth loss over longer periods were not reliably achievable. The influence of the type of prosthetic treatment on tooth loss might have been overestimated., Clinical Relevance: Regarding our results, the patient's view will gain even more importance in the clinical decision between removable and fixed restorations in SDAs.

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).