The randomized shortened dental arch study: tooth loss over five years.

OBJECTIVES: The study was designed to provide clinical outcome data for two treatments of the shortened dental arch (SDA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial, patients with complete molar loss in one jaw were provided with either a partial removable dental prosthesis (PRDP) retained with precision attachments or treated according to the SDA concept preserving or restoring a premolar occlusion. No implants were placed. The primary outcome was tooth loss. RESULTS: Of 152 treated patients, 132 patients reached the 5-year examination. Over 5 years, 38 patients experienced tooth loss. For the primary outcome tooth loss, the Kaplan-Meier survival rates at 5 years were 0.74 (95% CI 0.64, 0.84) in the PRDP group and 0.74 (95% CI 0.63, 0.85) in the SDA group. For tooth loss in the study jaw, the survival rates at 5 years were 0.88 (95% CI 0.80, 0.95) in the PRDP group and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74, 0.93) in the SDA group. The differences were not significant. No Cox regression models of appropriate fit explaining tooth loss on the patient level could be found. CONCLUSIONS: The overall treatment goals of a sustainable oral rehabilitation and the avoidance of further tooth loss over longer periods were not reliably achievable. The influence of the type of prosthetic treatment on tooth loss might have been overestimated. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regarding our results, the patient's view will gain even more importance in the clinical decision between removable and fixed restorations in SDAs.

The randomized shortened dental arch study: 5-year maintenance.

The scientific evidence concerning prosthodontic care for the shortened dental arch (SDA) is sparse. This randomized multicenter study aimed to compare two common treatment options: removable partial dental prostheses (RPDPs) for molar replacement vs. no replacement (SDA). One of the hypotheses was that the follow-up treatment differs between patients with RPDPs and patients with SDAs during the 5-year follow-up period. Two hundred and fifteen patients with complete molar loss in one jaw were included in the study. Molars were either replaced by RPDPs or not replaced according to the SDA concept. A mean number of 4.2 (RPDP) and 2.8 (SDA) treatments for biological or technical reasons occurred during the 5-year observation time per patient. Concerning the biological aspect, no significant differences between the groups could be shown, whereas treatment arising from technical reasons was significantly more frequent for the RPDP group. When the severity of treatment was analyzed, a change over time was evident. When, at baseline, only follow-up treatment with minimal effort is required, over time there is a continuous increase to moderate and extensive effort observed for both groups (Controlled-trials.com number ISRCTN97265367).

The randomized shortened dental arch study: tooth loss.

The evidence concerning the management of shortened dental arch (SDA) cases is sparse. This multi-center study was aimed at generating data on outcomes and survival rates for two common treatments, removable dental prostheses (RDP) for molar replacement or no replacement (SDA). The hypothesis was that the treatments lead to different incidences of tooth loss. We included 215 patients with complete molar loss in one jaw. Molars were either replaced by RDP or not replaced, according to the SDA concept. First tooth loss after treatment was the primary outcome measure. This event occurred in 13 patients in the RDP group and nine patients in the SDA group. The respective Kaplan-Meier survival rates at 38 months were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.91) in the RDP group and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.95) in the SDA group, the difference being non-significant.

[Pain drawings of patients with orofacial pain. Comparison of acceptance and gain of information]. / Schemata zur Schmerzeinzeichnung bei Patienten mit orofazialen Schmerzen. Vergleich von Akzeptanz und Informationsgehalt.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this prospective multicentric study was to compare two different types of pain drawings in terms of acceptance and gain of information in patients with orofacial pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 204 patients from 9 centers, who visited their dentist or physician for orofacial pain, received two different diagrams for pain drawings in random order. One was the original pain diagram of the Deutsche Schmerzfragebogen (German Pain Questionnaire, diagram A), and the other diagram had been developed to achieve a symmetrical representation of the body and to allow computer-assisted analysis (diagram B). This diagram was larger and contained a drawing of the head. The patients' answers were analyzed for the preference between diagrams, the number and distribution of pain areas, and the concordance between the diagrams. The results were correlated with the patients' data. RESULTS: Data from 183 patients could be analyzed: 100 of 183 patients preferred diagram B and 57 of 183 preferred diagram A, independent of gender, age, or duration of disease. Most patients reported pain in more than one area; in only 43 of 183 patients was the pain limited to the face and head. The number and distribution of pain areas were not different between the two pain diagrams. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed head and body diagrams can be used in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with orofacial pain without fear of placing excessive demands on the patients and are useful for detecting comorbidities.

[Recommendations for the standardized evaluation and classification of painful temporomandibular disorders: an update]. / Aktualisierung der Empfehlungen zur standardisierten Diagnostik und Klassifikation von Kaumuskel- und Kiefergelenkschmerzen.

BACKGROUND: In 2000, the interdisciplinary Working Group of Orofacial Pain within the German Chapter of the IASP (German Association for the Study of Pain) published recommendations for the standardized evaluation and diagnostic classification of patients with painful masticatory muscles and/or temporomandibular joints. The purpose of the present study was to critically review and update these recommendations. RESULTS: Appraisal of the relevant literature published after the release of the recommendations (up to December 2005) shows that the two-axis approach for the assessment of the somatic and psychosocial parameters of the orofacial pain experience has found wide support. Single aspects of the recommendations have been substantiated by additional scientific evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations reflect the current state of pain medicine. Therefore, they should be considered among practitioners who diagnose and manage patients suffering from temporomandibular disorders.

Effects of prosthetic treatment for shortened dental arches on oral health-related quality of life, self-reports of pain and jaw disability: results from the pilot-phase of a randomized multicentre trial.

A multi-centre randomized clinical trial is under way at 14 university dental schools in Germany to compare prosthodontic treatments for the shortened dental arch (SDA). One of the aims of this pilot-study was to measure the effect of two treatment options of the SDA on oral health-related quality of life and on the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Thirty-four patients participated in the pilot-study. Inclusion criteria were: all molars were missing and the presence of at least both canines and one premolar in each quadrant. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either removable partial dentures including molar replacement (RPD_group) or retain a premolar occlusion (PROC_group). The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) and the RDC for TMD were completed by participants before treatment (pre-treatment), 6 weeks (6 wks), 6 months (6m) and 12 months (12 m) after treatment. At the 12-month follow up, data of 10 women and 11 men (mean age: 62 +/- 10 years) were available. Medians of the OHIP total-scores were as follows: RPD (n = 10), 43.5 (pre-treatment), 18.2 (6 wks), 13.3 (6m), 14.7 (12 m). PROC (n = 11): 31.8 (pre-treatment), 27.1 (6 wks), 8.8 (6m), 8.3 (12 m). Significant differences were shown for RPD_group between pre-treatment and 6m/12 m and for PROC_group between pre-treatment and 6m. There were no significant differences between treatment groups at any time. Within each group, an improvement of life-quality was observed. No significant difference could be reported between the two therapy concepts. This may be due to the low sample size within the pilot study.

[The "incompletely operated" surgical patient as an emergency in the oral surgery clinic]. / Der "anoperierte" Patient als Notfall in der kieferchirurgischen Klinik.

The evaluation of a large series of cases with uncompleted surgical treatment should lead to recommendations concerning the correct management of these patients. From 1983 to 1992, cases with uncompleted surgical treatment (n = 741) represented 1.6% of all patients treated. 715 cases were related to the removal of teeth: in 431 patients the completion of treatment was sufficient; in 284 cases complications had to be treated. In the majority of cases, documentation and patient management by the primary therapist were incomplete and needed improvement. With respect to this, recommendations are made on the basis of evaluation of the data.