Article: Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence

File Download Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
Supplementary
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleProsthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence
AuthorsPjetursson, BE2 3
Lang, NP1 3
Issue Date2008
CitationJournal Of Oral Rehabilitation, 2008, v. 35 S1, p. 72-79 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01824.x
AbstractThe objective of this report is to summarize the results on survival and complication rates of different designs of fixed dental prostheses (FDP) published in a series of systematic reviews. Moreover, the various parameters for survival and risk assessment are to be used in attempt to perform treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on FDP and implant-supported single crowns (SC) with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year survival proportions. Meta-analysis of the studies included indicated an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDP of 93·8%, cantilever FDP of 91·4%, solely implant-supported FDP of 95·2%, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP of 95·5% and implant-supported SC of 94·5% as well as resin-bonded bridges 87·7%. Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89·2% for conventional FDP, to 80·3% for cantilever FDP, to 86·7% for implant-supported FDP, to 77·8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDP, to 89·4% for implant-supported SC and to 65% for resin-bonded bridges. When planning prosthetic rehabilitations, conventional end-abutment tooth-supported FDP, solely implant-supported FDP or implant-supported SC should be the first treatment option. Only as a second option, because of reasons such as financial aspects patient-centered preferences or anatomical structures cantilever tooth-supported FDP, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP or resin-bonded bridges should be chosen. © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
ISSN0305-182X
2011 Impact Factor: 1.529
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.123
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01824.x
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000251859300009
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
DC Field
Value
dc.contributor.authorPjetursson, BE
dc.contributor.authorLang, NP
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:25:40Z
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:25:40Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description.abstractThe objective of this report is to summarize the results on survival and complication rates of different designs of fixed dental prostheses (FDP) published in a series of systematic reviews. Moreover, the various parameters for survival and risk assessment are to be used in attempt to perform treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on FDP and implant-supported single crowns (SC) with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year survival proportions. Meta-analysis of the studies included indicated an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDP of 93·8%, cantilever FDP of 91·4%, solely implant-supported FDP of 95·2%, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP of 95·5% and implant-supported SC of 94·5% as well as resin-bonded bridges 87·7%. Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89·2% for conventional FDP, to 80·3% for cantilever FDP, to 86·7% for implant-supported FDP, to 77·8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDP, to 89·4% for implant-supported SC and to 65% for resin-bonded bridges. When planning prosthetic rehabilitations, conventional end-abutment tooth-supported FDP, solely implant-supported FDP or implant-supported SC should be the first treatment option. Only as a second option, because of reasons such as financial aspects patient-centered preferences or anatomical structures cantilever tooth-supported FDP, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP or resin-bonded bridges should be chosen. © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Oral Rehabilitation, 2008, v. 35 S1, p. 72-79 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01824.x
dc.identifier.citeulike2164740
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01824.x
dc.identifier.epage79
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000251859300009
dc.identifier.issn0305-182X
2011 Impact Factor: 1.529
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.123
dc.identifier.issueS1
dc.identifier.pmid18181936
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-37549054306
dc.identifier.spage72
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154498
dc.identifier.volume35
dc.languageeng
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Oral Rehabilitation
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
dc.subject.meshClinical Protocols
dc.subject.meshCohort Studies
dc.subject.meshDental Implants - Standards
dc.subject.meshDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported - Standards
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration Failure
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration, Permanent - Methods - Standards
dc.subject.meshEvidence-Based Medicine
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshRegression Analysis
dc.titleProsthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence
dc.typeArticle
Author Affiliations
  1. Aarhus Universitet
  2. University of Iceland
  3. Universität Bern