Jaana-Sophia Kern1, Stefan Wolfart2, Ralf-Dieter Hilgers3, Birgit Marré4, Herbert Scheller5, Jörg Strub6, Klaus Böning4, Wolfgang Hannak7, Ralph G Luthardt8, Guido Heydecke9, Jan Huppertz10, Peter Pospiech7, Bernd Wöstmann11, Helmut Stark12, Torsten Mundt13, Florentine Jahn14, Matthias Kern15, Daniel Edelhoff16, Michael H Walter4. 1. Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Center for Implantology, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. jkern@ukaachen.de. 2. Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Center for Implantology, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. 3. Department for Medical Statistics, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. 4. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dental School, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 5. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Johannes-Gutenberg University of Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany. 6. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Albert-Ludwig University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. 7. Center for Dental and Craniofacial Sciences Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatic Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, CC3, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany. 8. Center of Dentistry, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081, Ulm, Germany. 9. Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 10. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Julius-Maximilians University of Würzburg, Pleicherwall 2, 97070, Würzburg, Germany. 11. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Gießen, Germany. 12. Department of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University of Bonn, Welschnonnenstr. 17, 53111, Bonn, Germany. 13. Department of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Biomaterials, University Medicine Greifswald, Rotgerberstr. 8, 17487, Greifswald, Germany. 14. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Dental Material Science, Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena, An der alten Post 4, 07740, Jena, Germany. 15. Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany. 16. Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital of Munich, Goethestr. 70, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Being a secondary outcome in a multicenter randomized controlled trial, the present analysis focused on interdental spacing in the shortened dental arch (SDA). The aim was to evaluate changes in interdental spacing in dependence of two different treatments after an observation period of up to 5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were either treated with a partial removable dental prosthesis (PRDP) for molar replacement (PRDP group) or according to the SDA concept aiming at a premolar occlusion (SDA group) in a randomized manner. Interdental spacing in the anterior region was measured with gauges and categorized as "0" (<0.1 mm), "1" (<0.5 mm), "2" (0.5-1 mm), and "3" (>1 mm). The statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance models followed by linear contrast. RESULTS:Ninety-one patients (SDA n = 41, PRDP n = 50) were included. Changes of interdental spacing were detected in 70.7 % of all cases. A significant difference between the mean score changes was found in the mandible comparing the PRDP group and the SDA group. The respective mean score changes from baseline to 5 years were 0.23 (SD 0.49) for the PRDP group and 0.02 (SD 0.30) for the SDA group (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Major interdental spacing could be observed in neither of the groups. The SDA concept resulted in a slightly better outcome. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When deciding whether to replace missing molars, the present results give further support to the SDA concept.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Being a secondary outcome in a multicenter randomized controlled trial, the present analysis focused on interdental spacing in the shortened dental arch (SDA). The aim was to evaluate changes in interdental spacing in dependence of two different treatments after an observation period of up to 5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Patients were either treated with a partial removable dental prosthesis (PRDP) for molar replacement (PRDP group) or according to the SDA concept aiming at a premolar occlusion (SDA group) in a randomized manner. Interdental spacing in the anterior region was measured with gauges and categorized as "0" (<0.1 mm), "1" (<0.5 mm), "2" (0.5-1 mm), and "3" (>1 mm). The statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance models followed by linear contrast. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients (SDA n = 41, PRDP n = 50) were included. Changes of interdental spacing were detected in 70.7 % of all cases. A significant difference between the mean score changes was found in the mandible comparing the PRDP group and the SDA group. The respective mean score changes from baseline to 5 years were 0.23 (SD 0.49) for the PRDP group and 0.02 (SD 0.30) for the SDA group (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Major interdental spacing could be observed in neither of the groups. The SDA concept resulted in a slightly better outcome. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When deciding whether to replace missing molars, the present results give further support to the SDA concept.
Authors: M H Walter; B Marré; K Vach; J Strub; T Mundt; H Stark; P Pospiech; B Wöstmann; G Heydecke; M Kern; S Hartmann; R Luthardt; J Huppertz; S Wolfart; W Hannak Journal: J Oral Rehabil Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.837
Authors: S Wolfart; F Müller; J Gerß; G Heyedcke; B Marré; K Böning; B Wöstmann; M Kern; T Mundt; W Hannak; J Brückner; N Passia; F Jahn; S Hartmann; H Stark; E J Richter; W Gernet; R G Luthardt; M H Walter Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 3.573