Search

Purpose: To assess the survival of double-crown-retained implant-and-tooth-supported removable partial dentures (DCR-ITSRPDs), evaluate abutment survival, and identify first aftercare measures. Materials and Methods: The influence of various factors on the survival of the DCR-ITSRPDs and the abutments were observed in this retrospective and clinical follow-up study using the Kaplan-Meier estimate. In addition, the first-required aftercare measure for each prosthesis was evaluated. Results: In total, 47 DCR-ITSRPDs were investigated (mean observation: 4.3 ± 3.8 years; max: 14.3 years), 3 of which (6.4%) had to be replaced. The survival probability for DCR-ITSRPDs was 100% at 5 years and 75% at 10 years. A total of 297 abutments (120 natural teeth and 177 dental implants) were observed, 22 of which (7.4%; 6 teeth and 16 implants) failed. The survival probability for teeth was 90.2% at the 5- and 10-year mark; for dental implants, it was 90.4% at 5 years and 76.3% at 10 years. Conclusions: DCR-ITSRPDs are a successful and durable treatment option for patients with substantially reduced residual dentitions. Both prostheses and abutments show good survival times after 5 and 10 years in function. The patient-associated factors tested showed no influence on the survival of DCR-ITSRPDs and abutments. Peri-implant infection was the decisive factor for abutment loss; therefore, regular dental prophylaxis and examinations are of major importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To survey the clinical performance of telescopic-retained removable implant-supported dental prostheses (TR-RISDPs) in edentulous patients, as well as incidental maintenance measures and technical complications. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective analysis, the former presence of oral cancer, prosthesis location (maxilla or mandible), and participation in a follow-up program were analyzed as possible factors with an influence on survival and maintenance treatments of the TR-RISDPs and dental implants using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: A total of 86 TR-RISDPs (mean follow-up: 4.62 ± 3.24 years; maximum 13.8 years) and 465 implants (mean follow-up: 5.67 ± 3.59 years; maximum 16.5 years) were observed. Six (6.9%) of the TR-RISDPs had to be remade, and 11 (2.3%) implants failed. Regular attendance in the follow-up program showed significantly higher survival times and fewer maintenance treatments for the TRRISDPs (P < .05). Implants in patients with former oral cancer showed significantly lower survival times (P < .001). Conclusions: TR-RISDPs in edentulous patients show excellent clinical outcomes. Regular check-ups are decisive for success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the clinical performance of implant-supported dental prostheses (ISDPs), this retrospective clinical study observed influencing factors on survival of the prostheses and necessary maintenance treatments during the observation time and complications of the dental implants. Materials and Methods: Patients who were provided either with fixed implant-supported dental prostheses (FISDPs) or telescopic-retained removable implant-supported dental prostheses (TR-RISDPs) were included in this retrospective clinical study. Potential influencing factors on the survival probability of the prostheses were observed using Kaplan-Meier analysis: patient sex, type of prosthesis, location, dentition in opposing arch, participation in follow-up visits, and whether the patient had a previous history of oral cancer. The type and number of maintenance treatments and complications of dental implants were also analyzed. Results: A collective of 473 patients who were provided with either FISDPs (n = 320) or TR-RISDPs (n = 153) and 1,499 implants were included in the study. 6.6% of the prostheses (24 FISDPs and 7 TR-RISDPs) had to be replaced, and 6.3% of the implants (n = 45) were lost. The calculated 5-year survival probabilities were 87.4% for FISDPs and 95.5% for TR-RISDPs. FISDPs in patients who also had ISDPs in the opposing arch showed the lowest survival probabilities (P < .05). TR-RISDPs in patients who regularly attended follow-up visits showed the highest survival rates (P < .05). Maintenance treatments had to be performed at an earlier stage for patients with TR-RISDPs, and especially for TR-RISDPs located in the mandible (P < .05). Conclusion: FISDPs and TR-RISDPs showed good survival rates in this study. However, when planning FISDPs, the dentition in the opposing arch should be considered to prevent possible failure. TR-RISDPs indicate a higher need for aftercare measures, especially in the early years of function. Regular attendance of follow-up visits is still a decisive factor for success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of nonprecious alloy (NPA) vs precious alloy (PA) telescopic crown-retained removable partial dentures (TRPDs), the factors influencing survival, and the type and number of maintenance procedures required during the observation period.Materials and Methods: This retrospective clinical study is based on 462 patients with a total of 572 TRPDs on a total of 1,946 abutment teeth. The following parameters were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier analysis: sex; alloy type; denture location; number and distribution of abutment teeth (Kennedy Class); vitality of abutment teeth; dentition in the opposing arch; and participation in follow-up visits.Results: The mean observation period was 3.87 ± 3.15 years (2.99 ± 2.52 years for NPATRPDs and 5.36 ± 3.53 years for PA-TRPDs; maximum 11.01 years). During the observation period, 4.2% (n = 24) of the TRPDs ceased functioning and 8.3% (n = 161) of the abutment teeth had to be removed. The calculated 5- to 10-year survival probabilities were 96.1% and 84.0%, respectively, for the TRPDs. The number of abutment teeth was the only parameter that significantly (P < .05) impacted this probability, whereas the vitality of the abutment teeth and the type of alloy significantly (P < .05) impacted the survival probability of the abutment teeth. NPA-TRPDs needed significantly earlier initial treatment than PA-TRPDs (P < .05).Conclusion: The type of alloy seems to have no impact on TRPD survival, but seems to have an influence on the survival of the abutment teeth. There are also differences in maintenance between NPA- and PA-TRPDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate wear and fracture strength of chairside-milled new ceramic resins after artificial aging in a chewing simulator.Materials and Methods: Two ceramic resins (Lava Ultimate and Vita Enamic) and two conventional ceramics (IPS Empress CAD and Celtra Duo) were tested. For analysis of wear, baseline and follow-up scans of the specimens were made, the scans were superimposed, and the wear was calculated. To determine fracture strength, the specimens were loaded until they fractured.Results: Lava Ultimate showed the highest wear, caused the lowest wear of the opposing dentition, and showed statistically significantly higher fracture strength than conventional ceramics after cyclic loading.Conclusion: New ceramic resins for chairside milling are a good alternative to conventional ceramics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the survival of double-crown-retained implant-and-tooth-supported removable partial dentures (DCR-ITSRPDs), evaluate abutment survival, and identify first aftercare measures., Materials and Methods: The influence of various factors on the survival of the DCR-ITSRPDs and the abutments were observed in this retrospective and clinical follow-up study using the Kaplan-Meier estimate. In addition, the first-required aftercare measure for each prosthesis was evaluated., Results: In total, 47 DCR-ITSRPDs were investigated (mean observation: 4.3 ± 3.8 years; max: 14.3 years), 3 of which (6.4%) had to be replaced. The survival probability for DCR-ITSRPDs was 100% at 5 years and 75% at 10 years. A total of 297 abutments (120 natural teeth and 177 dental implants) were observed, 22 of which (7.4%; 6 teeth and 16 implants) failed. The survival probability for teeth was 90.2% at the 5- and 10-year mark; for dental implants, it was 90.4% at 5 years and 76.3% at 10 years., Conclusions: DCR-ITSRPDs are a successful and durable treatment option for patients with substantially reduced residual dentitions. Both prostheses and abutments show good survival times after 5 and 10 years in function. The patient-associated factors tested showed no influence on the survival of DCR-ITSRPDs and abutments. Peri-implant infection was the decisive factor for abutment loss; therefore, regular dental prophylaxis and examinations are of major importance.