Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
IJP Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: IJP
The International Journal of Prosthodontics

Edited by George A. Zarb, BChD, DDS, MS, MS, FRCD(C)

ISSN 0893-2174

Publication:
May/June 2012
Volume 25 , Issue 3

Back
Share Abstract:

Clinical Performance of Conical and Electroplated Telescopic Double Crown–Retained Partial Dentures: A Randomized Clinical Study

Thomas Stober/Justo Lorenzo Bermejo/Joachim Beck-Mußotter/Anne-Christiane Séché/Franziska Lehmann/Juanita Koob/Peter Rammelsberg

Pages: 209-216
PMID: 22545249

Purpose: The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the clinical performance of cast conical double crown–retained removable partial dentures (C-RPDs) and electroplated double crown–retained removable partial dentures (EP-RPDs). Materials and Methods: A total of 60 RPDs were placed in 54 patients. Participants were randomly assigned to two study groups (C-RPD and EP-RPD). Altogether, 217 abutment teeth were provided with double crowns. Patients were reexamined after 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. The main endpoints were the survival times of RPDs and abutment teeth; secondary endpoints included failure of the facing, loss of cementation of primary crowns, and postprosthetic endodontic treatment. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate group differences regarding characteristics of patients and RPDs. Survival differences were investigated using the log-rank test and Cox regression; secondary endpoints were assessed using logistic regression. Results: After 36 months, survival was 100% for C-RPDs and 93.3% for EP-RPDs. Cumulative survival for abutment teeth was 97.3% (C-RPDs) and 96.2% (EP-RPDs). Survival differences between the two study groups did not reach statistical significance. The survival of abutments depended on tooth vitality and position; for example, the hazard of tooth loss was 676% higher for nonvital teeth. No differences were found between study groups regarding facing failure, decementation of primary crowns, or postprosthetic endodontic treatment. Conclusions: Vitality and position are important to the survival of teeth supporting partial dentures. Longer follow-up and larger patient collectives are needed to evaluate possible differences between cast conical and electroplated telescopic double crown–retained partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:209–216.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog