Management of shortened dental arches and periodontal health: 5-year results of a randomised trial

In a multicentre randomised trial (German Research Association, grants DFG WA 831/2-1 to 2-6, WO 677/2-1.1 to 2-2.1.; controlled-trials.com ISRCTN97265367), patients with complete molar loss in one jaw received either a partial removable dental prosthesis (PRDP) with precision attachments or treatment according to the SDA concept aiming at pre-molar occlusion. The objective of this current analysis was to evaluate the influence of different treatments on periodontal health. Linear mixed regression models were fitted to quantify the differences between the treatment groups. The assessment at 5 years encompassed 59 patients (PRDP group) and 46 patients (SDA group). For the distal measuring sites of the posterior-most teeth of the study jaw, significant differences were found for the plaque index according to Silness and Löe, vertical clinical attachment loss (CAL-V), probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing. These differences were small and showed a slightly more unfavourable course in the PRDP group. With CAL-V and PPD, significant differences were also found for the study jaw as a whole. For CAL-V, the estimated group differences over 5 years amounted to 0.27 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.48; P = 0.016) for the study jaw and 0.25 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.45; P = 0.014) for the distal sites of the posterior-most teeth. The respective values for PPD were 0.22 mm (95% CI 0.03; 0.41; P = 0.023) and 0.32 mm (95% CI 0.13; 0.5; P = 0.001). It can be concluded that even in a well-maintained.patient group statistically significant although minor detrimental effects of PRDPs on periodontal health are measurable.

The Randomized Shortened Dental Arch Study

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).

The Randomized Shortened Dental Arch Study

The evidence concerning the management of shortened dental arch (SDA) cases is sparse. This multi-center study was aimed at generating data on outcomes and survival rates for two common treatments, removable dental prostheses (RDP) for molar replacement or no replacement (SDA). The hypothesis was that the treatments lead to different incidences of tooth loss. We included 215 patients with complete molar loss in one jaw. Molars were either replaced by RDP or not replaced, according to the SDA concept. First tooth loss after treatment was the primary outcome measure. This event occurred in 13 patients in the RDP group and nine patients in the SDA group. The respective Kaplan-Meier survival rates at 38 months were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.91) in the RDP group and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.95) in the SDA group, the difference being non-significant.