Abstract
Design
This was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in a dental hospital.
Intervention
Resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPD) or removable partial dentures (RPD) were compared. The RBFPD restored 1 occlusal unit, up to but not beyond the second premolar, by means of single pontics cantilevered from single abutments whenever possible. Bilateral lower free-end saddle RPD were constructed on cast metal frameworks that incorporated rests, retainers and a rigid connector. The trial's participants were reviewed 3 months and 1 year after insertion of the new lower prosthesis, and thereafter at yearly intervals. Additional review and maintenance appointments were scheduled as clinically required.
Outcome measure
Survival of the prosthesis was assessed at each review according to specified criteria. Survival analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazard regression ratio.
Results
Eleven fixed partial dentures and 15 RPD failed. Debonding was the most common cause of failure in the RBFPD group, with non-use and loss of teeth most common in the RPD group. Although the RPD group required rather more maintenance visits, the difference in prosthesis survival rates was not statistically significant [hazard ratio (HR), 0.59; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.27–1.29].
Conclusions
The absence of a significant difference in 5-year survival, the reported advantages of fixed partial dentures, and the greater maintenance need for those in the RPD treatment group support the use of RBFPD.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Kayser AF . Shortened dental arches and oral function. J Oral Rehabil 1981; 8:457–462.
Kanno T, Carlsson GE . A review of the shortened dental arch concept focusing on the work by the Kayser/ Nijmegen group. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33:850–862.
Jepson NJ, Thomason JM, Steele JG . The influence of denture design on patient acceptance of partial dentures. Br Dent J 1995; 178:296–300.
Aquilino SA, Shugars DA, Bader JD, White BA . Ten-year survival rates of teeth adjacent to treated and untreated posterior bounded edentulous spaces. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85:455–460.
Chapman D . Modelling survival data in medical research. 2nd Edn. London: Chapman and Hall; 2003.
Nassani MZ, Devlin H, McCord JF, Kay EJ . The shortened dental arch – an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values. Int Dent J 2005; 55:307–312.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: JM Thomason, School of Dental Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4BW, UK. E-mail: j.m.thomason@ncl.ac.uk
Thomason JM, Moynihan PJ, Steen N, Jepson NJ. Time to survival for the restoration of the shortened lower dental arch. J Dent Res 2007; 86:646–650.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Balevi, B. No difference in the 5-year survival rates between the resin-bonded cantilever bridge and the removable partial denture for the restoration of the shortened dental arch. Evid Based Dent 9, 105–106 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400610
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400610
