| Literature DB >> 21960301 |
Qian Zhang1, Dick J Witter, Ewald M Bronkhorst, Muyun Jia, Nico H J Creugers.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to investigate the prevalence of missing teeth and prosthodontic replacements in a Chinese adult population using a hierarchical dental functional classification system. A total of 1,462 dentate subjects over 40 years from Shandong Province, China were included and categorized in the functional classification system with and without tooth replacements. Depending on replacements, subjects could be reclassified (promoted) to categories reflecting higher functionality. "Promotions" were considered indicators for prosthodontic effectiveness. Homogeneities after dichotomization into functional categories appeared to be moderate to good. In the "≥10 teeth in each jaw" branch, mean number of teeth and posterior occluding pairs were 27.93 ± 2.74 and 7.10 ± 1.94, respectively. In the branch "<10 teeth in each jaw," these figures were 16.17 ± 5.54 and 1.49 ± 1.45. Fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) added on average 3.5 artificial teeth; 46% of subjects with FDP promoted to a higher functional level. For removable dental prostheses (RDPs), these numbers were 8.5% and 79%, respectively. Promotion value per tooth added was significantly higher for FDPs. The classification system was able to quantify the effectiveness of teeth replacements. It was shown that RDPs were more effective when higher numbers of teeth were replaced, while FDPs were more effective per artificial tooth added.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21960301 PMCID: PMC3400026 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0616-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Oral Investig ISSN: 1432-6981 Impact factor: 3.573
Number (percent) of included subjects according to gender and residence
| Urban | Rural | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 419 (54) | 350 (46) | 769 (48) |
| Male | 396 (48) | 423 (52) | 819 (52) |
| Total | 815 (51) | 773 (49) | 1588 (100) |
Levels and criteria for dichotomization of the step-by-step branching hierarchy used
| Level | Meeting criterion | Dichotomy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| I Dentition level | ≥1 tooth present in each jaw | Edentulous jaw(s) | ≥1 tooth vs. no teeth |
| II Jaw level | ≥10 teeth in both upper | < 10 teeth in upper | ≥10 teeth vs. <10 teeth |
| III Anterior level | All 12 anterior teeth present | <12 anterior teeth | Complete vs. incomplete |
| IV Premolar level | 3 or 4 occluding pairs of premolars | ≤2 occluding pairs of premolars | “Sufficient” vs. “impaired” |
| V Molar level | ≥1 occluding pairs of molars at both left | No occluding pairs of molars at left | “Sufficient” vs. “impaired” |
Fig. 1Examples of promotions (reclassifications to categories reflecting higher functionality) by fixed and removable tooth replaments: (1) promotion to sufficient molar region by two FDPs (1 point); (2) promotion to sufficient premolar region by one FDP (2 points); (3) promotion to complete anterior region by two FDPs; (4) promotion to sufficient premolar region (2 point) and complete anterior region (3 points) by two FDPs; (5) promotion to sufficient molar (1 point) and premolar regions (2 points), complete anterior region (3 points) and more than ten teeth in each jaw (4 points)
Fig. 2Percentage of subjects and number of natural teeth and natural posterior occluding pairs per age group, according to the step-by-step branching hierarchy dichotomized (yes/no) at five levels: I ≥1 tooth in each jaw, II ≥10 natural teeth in each jaw, III anterior region complete, IV premolar region “sufficient,” V molar region “sufficient”
Number of subjects (percent) with partial dental prostheses according to number of teeth replaced
| Number of teeth replaced | Subjects having FDP | Subjects having RDP | Subjects having FDP or RDP or both |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | 251 (57) | 36 (22) | 262 (47) |
| 3–7 | 169 (38) | 57 (36) | 204 (37) |
| >7 | 21 (5) | 67 (42) | 92 (16) |
| Total | 441 (100) | 160 (100) | 558 (100) |
Fig. 3Mean number of teeth and posterior occluding pairs per age group according to the step-by-step branching hierarchy dichotomized (yes/no) at five levels: I ≥1 tooth in each jaw, II ≥10 natural teeth in each jaw, III anterior region complete, IV premolar region “sufficient,” V molar region “sufficient.” SDs T Standard deviations number of teeth; SDs P standard deviations number of POPs
Number of subjects (percent) eligible for promotion with fixed (FDP) and removable (RDP) dental prostheses that promoted in the dental functional classification system, mean promotion values, and mean promotion values per tooth added
| Subjects having FDP or RDP or both | Subjects having FDP | Subjects having RDP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Teeth added mean (SD) |
| Teeth added mean (SD) |
| Teeth added mean (SD) | |
| No promotion | 224 (40) | 2.05 (1.77) | 237 (54) | 2.16 (1.71) | 34 (21) | 3.76 (3.85) |
| One or more promotions | 334 (60) | 5.93 (5.14) | 204 (46) | 3.53 (2.43) | 126 (79) | 8.57 (5.71) |
| Promotion to functional level (value) |
|
|
| |||
| II ≥ 10 teeth in each jaw (4) | 144 (77) | 54 (45) | 77 (75) | |||
| III Anterior region complete (3) | 153 (53) | 82 (39) | 66 (57) | |||
| IV “Sufficient” premolar region (2) | 167 (70) | 77 (46) | 79 (73) | |||
| V “Sufficient” molar region (1) | 155 (59) | 74 (39) | 73 (67) | |||
| Mean (SD) promotion valueb | 4.56 (2.91) | 3.38 (2.22) | 5.85 (3.00) | |||
| Mean (SD) promotion value per tooth added for subjects with or without promotionb | 0.66 (0.83) | 0.58 (0.86)* | 0.72 (0.68)* | |||
| Mean (SD) promotion value per tooth added for subjects with promotion | 1.11 (0.81) | 1.25 (0.88)** | 0.92 (0.65)** | |||
| Total number of subjects with tooth replacements | 558 | 441 | 160 | |||
Promotion values: 1 = promoted to “sufficient” molar region; 2 = promoted to “sufficient” premolar region; 3 = promoted to anterior region complete; 4 = promoted to ≥10 teeth in each jaw
aPercentage of subjects eligible for promotion to the respective functional levels
bIncluding subjects with no promotion; promotion value = 0
*p = 0.068, no significant difference; **p < 0.001, significant difference