Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial

Objectives The 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 methods Fifty-four participants received a total of 60 RDP. Two hundred and seventeen abutment tee...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical oral investigations 2015-06, Vol.19 (5), p.1129-1136
Hauptverfasser: Stober, Thomas, Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo, Séché, Anne-Christiane, Lehmann, Franziska, Rammelsberg, Peter, Bömicke, Wolfgang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1136
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1129
container_title Clinical oral investigations
container_volume 19
creator Stober, Thomas
Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo
Séché, Anne-Christiane
Lehmann, Franziska
Rammelsberg, Peter
Bömicke, Wolfgang
description Objectives The 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 methods Fifty-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. Results Six-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. Conclusions To identify possible differences between different double crown systems, longer follow-up periods and/or larger numbers of patients are needed. Clinical relevance Survival 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00784-014-1335-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1681908996</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1681908996</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-473e94d21b858ab43906f7bf5d763de5af1f731c585e8c217386669957b04eec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUuLFTEQhYMozkN_gBsJuHETTTqdlzsZxlEYcKPrkE5Xaw_pzjVJ61x_vXXnjiKCmyRwvnNS1CHkmeCvBOfmdcXD9oyLngkpFbt9QE5FLzWTxoiHd--OaWfFCTmr9YYjqI18TE46JdHqxCnZXyaIreRdCg1GGtaRxlAbHfM2JKCx5B8rK9DCvKJcYMnfw0EYYW0h0V3JtX2FCvUN1WwPoSBTt9QqnUpeaKAFI_My_0R3TPM6R3S1Mof0hDyaQqrw9P4-J5_fXX66eM-uP159uHh7zaLitrHeSHD92InBKhuGXjquJzNMajRajqDCJCYjRVRWgY2dMNJqrZ1TZuA9QJTn5OUxF2f9tkFtfplrhJTCCnmrXmgrHLfOaURf_IPe5K2sON0d1SntlEVKHClcTq0FJr8r8xLK3gvuD734Yy8e1-0Pvfhb9Dy_T96GBcY_jt9FINAdgYrS-gXKX1__N_UXAbmZqw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1681256958</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Stober, Thomas ; Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo ; Séché, Anne-Christiane ; Lehmann, Franziska ; Rammelsberg, Peter ; Bömicke, Wolfgang</creator><creatorcontrib>Stober, Thomas ; Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo ; Séché, Anne-Christiane ; Lehmann, Franziska ; Rammelsberg, Peter ; Bömicke, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives The 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 methods Fifty-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. Results Six-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. Conclusions To identify possible differences between different double crown systems, longer follow-up periods and/or larger numbers of patients are needed. Clinical relevance Survival 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-6981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1436-3771</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1335-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25300791</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Crowns ; Dental Abutments ; Dental Prosthesis Design ; Dental Prosthesis Retention ; Dental Restoration Failure ; Dentistry ; Denture, Partial, Removable ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medicine ; Middle Aged ; Original Article</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral investigations, 2015-06, Vol.19 (5), p.1129-1136</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-473e94d21b858ab43906f7bf5d763de5af1f731c585e8c217386669957b04eec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-473e94d21b858ab43906f7bf5d763de5af1f731c585e8c217386669957b04eec3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00784-014-1335-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00784-014-1335-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25300791$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stober, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Séché, Anne-Christiane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehmann, Franziska</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rammelsberg, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bömicke, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><title>Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial</title><title>Clinical oral investigations</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Invest</addtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><description>Objectives The 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 methods Fifty-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. Results Six-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. Conclusions To identify possible differences between different double crown systems, longer follow-up periods and/or larger numbers of patients are needed. Clinical relevance Survival 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.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Crowns</subject><subject>Dental Abutments</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Retention</subject><subject>Dental Restoration Failure</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Denture, Partial, Removable</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><issn>1432-6981</issn><issn>1436-3771</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUuLFTEQhYMozkN_gBsJuHETTTqdlzsZxlEYcKPrkE5Xaw_pzjVJ61x_vXXnjiKCmyRwvnNS1CHkmeCvBOfmdcXD9oyLngkpFbt9QE5FLzWTxoiHd--OaWfFCTmr9YYjqI18TE46JdHqxCnZXyaIreRdCg1GGtaRxlAbHfM2JKCx5B8rK9DCvKJcYMnfw0EYYW0h0V3JtX2FCvUN1WwPoSBTt9QqnUpeaKAFI_My_0R3TPM6R3S1Mof0hDyaQqrw9P4-J5_fXX66eM-uP159uHh7zaLitrHeSHD92InBKhuGXjquJzNMajRajqDCJCYjRVRWgY2dMNJqrZ1TZuA9QJTn5OUxF2f9tkFtfplrhJTCCnmrXmgrHLfOaURf_IPe5K2sON0d1SntlEVKHClcTq0FJr8r8xLK3gvuD734Yy8e1-0Pvfhb9Dy_T96GBcY_jt9FINAdgYrS-gXKX1__N_UXAbmZqw</recordid><startdate>20150601</startdate><enddate>20150601</enddate><creator>Stober, Thomas</creator><creator>Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo</creator><creator>Séché, Anne-Christiane</creator><creator>Lehmann, Franziska</creator><creator>Rammelsberg, Peter</creator><creator>Bömicke, Wolfgang</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150601</creationdate><title>Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial</title><author>Stober, Thomas ; Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo ; Séché, Anne-Christiane ; Lehmann, Franziska ; Rammelsberg, Peter ; Bömicke, Wolfgang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-473e94d21b858ab43906f7bf5d763de5af1f731c585e8c217386669957b04eec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Crowns</topic><topic>Dental Abutments</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Retention</topic><topic>Dental Restoration Failure</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Denture, Partial, Removable</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stober, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Séché, Anne-Christiane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehmann, Franziska</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rammelsberg, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bömicke, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stober, Thomas</au><au>Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo</au><au>Séché, Anne-Christiane</au><au>Lehmann, Franziska</au><au>Rammelsberg, Peter</au><au>Bömicke, Wolfgang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle><stitle>Clin Oral Invest</stitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><date>2015-06-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1129</spage><epage>1136</epage><pages>1129-1136</pages><issn>1432-6981</issn><eissn>1436-3771</eissn><abstract>Objectives The 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 methods Fifty-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. Results Six-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. Conclusions To identify possible differences between different double crown systems, longer follow-up periods and/or larger numbers of patients are needed. Clinical relevance Survival 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.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>25300791</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00784-014-1335-x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1432-6981
ispartof Clinical oral investigations, 2015-06, Vol.19 (5), p.1129-1136
issn 1432-6981
1436-3771
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1681908996
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Crowns
Dental Abutments
Dental Prosthesis Design
Dental Prosthesis Retention
Dental Restoration Failure
Dentistry
Denture, Partial, Removable
Female
Humans
Male
Medicine
Middle Aged
Original Article
title Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T12%3A54%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Electroplated%20and%20cast%20double%20crown-retained%20removable%20dental%20prostheses:%206-year%20results%20from%20a%20randomized%20clinical%20trial&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20investigations&rft.au=Stober,%20Thomas&rft.date=2015-06-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1129&rft.epage=1136&rft.pages=1129-1136&rft.issn=1432-6981&rft.eissn=1436-3771&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00784-014-1335-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1681908996%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1681256958&rft_id=info:pmid/25300791&rfr_iscdi=true