Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses

• Verfasst von: Stober, Thomas [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Lorenzo Bermejo, Justo [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Séché, Anne-Christiane [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Lehmann, Franziska [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Rammelsberg, Peter [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Bömicke, Wolfgang [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses
• Titelzusatz: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial
• Verf.angabe: Thomas Stober, Justo Lorenzo Bermejo, Anne-Christiane Séché, Franziska Lehmann, Peter Rammelsberg, Wolfgang Bömicke
• Jahr: 2015
• Umfang: 8 S.
• Fussnoten: Published online: 11 October 2014 ; Gesehen am 08.06.2017
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Clinical oral investigations
• Ort Quelle: Berlin : Springer, 1997
• Jahr Quelle: 2015
• Band/Heft Quelle: 19(2015), 5, Seite 1129-1136
• ISSN Quelle: 1436-3771
• DOI: doi:10.1007/s00784-014-1335-x
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1559582960

Abstract

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of removable dental prostheses (RDP) supported by either electroplated (EP-RDP) or cast (C-RDP) double crowns.Material and methodsFifty-four participants received a total of 60 RDP. Two hundred and seventeen abutment teeth were provided with double crowns. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups (EP-RDP or C-RDP). Re-evaluations took place after 6 months and then once a year up to 6 years. Primary endpoint was survival time for RDP and abutment teeth; secondary endpoints were failure of facing, decementation of primary crown, and post-prosthetic endodontic treatment. T, U, and chi-squared tests were used to assess the homogeneity of the EP-RDP and C-RDP groups. Survival differences were analyzed with log-rank tests and Cox regression models; secondary endpoints were assessed by the use of logistic regression.ResultsSix-year survival was 77 % for EP-RDP and 97 % for C-RDP. Cumulative survival of abutment teeth was 85 % for EP-RDP and 91 % for C-RDP; differences between survivals in the two groups did not reach statistical significance. Survival of abutment teeth depended on tooth vitality. Failures of facings, decementations, or post-prosthetic endodontic treatments were not different between groups.ConclusionsTo identify possible differences between different double crown systems, longer follow-up periods and/or larger numbers of patients are needed.Clinical relevanceSurvival of teeth supporting double crown-retained RDP is affected by their vitality. Clinical performance was acceptable for both RDP supported by electroplated or cast double crowns.