Avinash S Bidra1, Diane M Daubert2, Lily T Garcia3, Timothy F Kosinski4, Conrad A Nenn5, John A Olsen6, Jeffrey A Platt7, Susan S Wingrove8, Nancy Deal Chandler9, Donald A Curtis10. 1. Department of Reconstructive Sciences, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT. 2. Department of Periodontics, University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, WA. 3. Office of the Dean, University of Iowa College of Dentistry & Dental Clinics, Iowa City, IA. 4. Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry, Detroit, MI. 5. Department of General Dental Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, WI. 6. Private Practice, Franklin, WI. 7. Department of Biomedical and Applied Sciences, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN. 8. Private Practice Hygienist, Regeneration Research, Missoula, MT. 9. Executive Director, American College of Prosthodontists and ACP Education Foundation, Chicago, IL. 10. Department of Preventive & Restorative Dental Sciences, UCSF School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from two systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained. RESULTS: A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patient recall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the two systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.
PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for patientrecall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from two systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained. RESULTS: A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patientrecall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the two systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patientrecall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.