Dental Core Trainee, Restorative Department, Newcastle Dental Hospital, UK.
Academic Clinical Fellow/Honorary Speciality Trainee, Newcastle Dental Hospital, UK.
Evid Based Dent. 2021 Jan;22(3):112-113. doi: 10.1038/s41432-021-0193-z.
Design Multi-centre randomised controlled clinical trial with two prosthetic intervention arms conducted in 14 dental schools and universities in Germany from October 2000.Case selection Adults aged ≥35 years with bilateral missing molars, both canines and at least one premolar present on each side in one jaw were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomly allocated to restoration of posterior teeth using a removable partial denture (RPD), or a fixed prosthesis (that is, a bridge) adhering to the concepts of the shortened dental arch (SDA) principles (no replacement posterior to the second molar). Randomisation was completed centrally using randomly permuted blocks stratified by age. Data were collected at baseline (following pre-prosthetic treatment) and patients were followed up at six months, annually for five years, eight years and ten years.Data analysis In total, 215 participants were randomised and allocated to either RPD group (n = 109) or SDA group (n = 106). Intention to treat (ITT) and modified per-protocol analysis were performed on both the RPD group (n = 79) and SDA group (n = 71). Per-protocol analysis was also undertaken on both the RPD group (n = 25) and SDA group (n = 22). The level of significance was set to a two-sided p value of 0.05. The confidence interval was set at 95%.Results When considering the differences in ten-year vertical clinical attachment loss measurements, ITT analysis showed the differences between the RPD and SDA groups were statistically significant (p ≤0.05) in both the study jaw (0.79 mm) and in all teeth (0.69 mm) in favour of the SDA group. Furthermore, the SDA group also performed more favourably in both bleeding on probing and plaque index parameters, with statistically significant changes demonstrated using positive regression coefficients.Conclusions There is evidence of reduced impact on the periodontium from an SDA approach compared to an RPD approach, although the difference is unlikely to be clinically significant.
设计一项多中心随机对照临床试验,在德国的 14 所牙科学院和大学开展,采用两种修复干预手段,于 2000 年 10 月开始。
年龄≥35 岁,每侧下颌有双侧缺失磨牙、双侧尖牙和至少一颗前磨牙的成年人有资格入选。参与者随机分配到使用可摘局部义齿(RPD)或固定修复体(即桥体)修复后牙,修复体遵循短牙弓(SDA)原则(第二磨牙后不做修复)。中央随机分组使用随机排列的区组,按年龄分层。数据在基线时(修复前治疗后)收集,患者在 6 个月、5 年、8 年和 10 年时进行随访。
共有 215 名参与者被随机分配到 RPD 组(n=109)或 SDA 组(n=106)。对 RPD 组(n=79)和 SDA 组(n=71)进行意向治疗(ITT)和改良符合方案分析。对 RPD 组(n=25)和 SDA 组(n=22)进行符合方案分析。双侧 p 值为 0.05 时,检验水准为双侧 p 值。置信区间设定为 95%。
考虑十年时的垂直临床附着丧失测量值的差异,ITT 分析显示 RPD 组和 SDA 组在研究牙(0.79mm)和所有牙齿(0.69mm)的差异有统计学意义(p≤0.05),SDA 组更有利。此外,SDA 组在探诊出血和菌斑指数参数方面表现更优,阳性回归系数显示有统计学意义的变化。
与 RPD 方法相比,SDA 方法对牙周组织的影响较小,但差异可能无临床意义。