A Datta1, H S Sandhu2. 1. Graded Specialist (Prosthodontics), 200 Military Dental Centre, C/o 56 APO, India. 2. Commandant, Command Military Dental Centre (Western Command), Chandimandir, Haryana, India.
Abstract
Background: Fixed dental prostheses have been provided in the Armed Forces for a long time, yet definite evidence-based guidelines on the success and failure of different types of prostheses are currently lacking. A cross-sectional observational study was conducted as a step towards addressing this lacuna. Methods: The study included 156 patients and 538 prostheses based on pre-established inclusion criteria. The types of prostheses that were evaluated included crowns, fixed partial dentures (FPDs), post and core restorations, dental implants and veneers. Visual, tactile and radiographic examination was used for evaluating the prostheses. Success, survival and failure of prostheses were evaluated, and the types of complications leading to the failure were also recorded. In addition, the oral hygiene status of the included patients was also evaluated using the Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified. Results: The overall failure rate in all prostheses combined together was 28.81%. The failure rate in cantilever FPDs was the highest at 44.44%. It was 16.67% in veneers, 35.37% in conventional FPDs, 23.81% in single crowns and 30.56% in all post and core restorations. Conclusion: Barring the all-ceramic prostheses and fibre post and core restorations, the rate of occurrence of both complications and failures in the remaining categories of prostheses was higher than that mentioned in the literature.
Background: Fixed dental prostheses have been provided in the Armed Forces for a long time, yet definite evidence-based guidelines on the success and failure of different types of prostheses are currently lacking. A cross-sectional observational study was conducted as a step towards addressing this lacuna. Methods: The study included 156 patients and 538 prostheses based on pre-established inclusion criteria. The types of prostheses that were evaluated included crowns, fixed partial dentures (FPDs), post and core restorations, dental implants and veneers. Visual, tactile and radiographic examination was used for evaluating the prostheses. Success, survival and failure of prostheses were evaluated, and the types of complications leading to the failure were also recorded. In addition, the oral hygiene status of the included patients was also evaluated using the Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified. Results: The overall failure rate in all prostheses combined together was 28.81%. The failure rate in cantilever FPDs was the highest at 44.44%. It was 16.67% in veneers, 35.37% in conventional FPDs, 23.81% in single crowns and 30.56% in all post and core restorations. Conclusion: Barring the all-ceramic prostheses and fibre post and core restorations, the rate of occurrence of both complications and failures in the remaining categories of prostheses was higher than that mentioned in the literature.
Authors: Isabelle Bart; Boris Dobler; Kurt Schmidlin; Marcel Zwahlen; Giovanni E Salvi; Niklaus P Lang; Urs Bragger Journal: Int J Prosthodont Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.681
Authors: Roberto Sorrentino; Luigi Galasso; Stefano Tetè; Giorgio De Simone; Fernando Zarone Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.932