File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence

TitleProsthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence
Authors
Issue Date2008
Citation
Journal Of Oral Rehabilitation, 2008, v. 35 S1, p. 72-79 How to Cite?
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.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154498
ISSN
2014 Impact Factor: 1.682
2014 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.674
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPjetursson, BEen_US
dc.contributor.authorLang, NPen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:25:40Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:25:40Z-
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Oral Rehabilitation, 2008, v. 35 S1, p. 72-79en_US
dc.identifier.issn0305-182Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154498-
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.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Oral Rehabilitationen_US
dc.subject.meshClinical Protocolsen_US
dc.subject.meshCohort Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Implants - Standardsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported - Standardsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration Failureen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration, Permanent - Methods - Standardsen_US
dc.subject.meshEvidence-Based Medicineen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshRegression Analysisen_US
dc.titleProsthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidenceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01824.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid18181936en_US
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-37549054306en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-37549054306&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume35en_US
dc.identifier.issueS1en_US
dc.identifier.spage72en_US
dc.identifier.epage79en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000251859300009-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPjetursson, BE=6506841442en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, NP=7201577367en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike2164740-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats