File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleProsthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence
 
AuthorsPjetursson, BE2 3 2
Lang, NP3 1
 
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
2012 Impact Factor: 2.344
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.729
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01824.x
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000251859300009
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
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
2012 Impact Factor: 2.344
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.729
 
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
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Pjetursson, BE</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lang, NP</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2012-08-08T08:25:40Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2012-08-08T08:25:40Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2008</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Journal Of Oral Rehabilitation, 2008, v. 35 S1, p. 72-79</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0305-182X</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/154498</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>The 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&#183;8%, cantilever FDP of 91&#183;4%, solely implant-supported FDP of 95&#183;2%, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP of 95&#183;5% and implant-supported SC of 94&#183;5% as well as resin-bonded bridges 87&#183;7%. Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89&#183;2% for conventional FDP, to 80&#183;3% for cantilever FDP, to 86&#183;7% for implant-supported FDP, to 77&#183;8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDP, to 89&#183;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. &#169; 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<relation.ispartof>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</relation.ispartof>
<subject.mesh>Clinical Protocols</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Cohort Studies</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Implants - Standards</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported - Standards</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Restoration Failure</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Restoration, Permanent - Methods - Standards</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Evidence-Based Medicine</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Humans</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Regression Analysis</subject.mesh>
<title>Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01824.x</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>18181936</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-37549054306</identifier.scopus>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-37549054306&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>35</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>S1</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>72</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>79</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000251859300009</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United Kingdom</publisher.place>
<identifier.citeulike>2164740</identifier.citeulike>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. Aarhus Universitet
  2. University of Iceland
  3. Universität Bern