Randomized trial investigating zirconia electroplated telescopic retainers: quality of life outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to evaluate the effect of electroplated telescopic removable dental prostheses (E-RDPs) with zirconia primary crowns on oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For E-RDPs, electroplating is used to produce precisely fitting gold copings on telescopic primary crowns. These copings are bonded intra-orally to the denture framework. Fifty-six participants in need of 60 removable restorations were randomly allocated one of two materials for the primary crowns: cobalt-chromium alloy or zirconia. OHRQoL was assessed by use of the 49-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) and by additional patient self-rating at baseline before treatment, and after 6 and 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed by use of one- and two-sample t-tests and analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Mean OHIP sum score at baseline was 53.4 (SD 37.4, 95 % CI 41.3-62). At follow-ups, it decreased significantly (after 6 months: mean 20, SD 26, 95 % CI 13-27.1; after 12 months: mean 16.4, SD 17.9, 95 % CI 11.6-21.2). The mean reduction in OHIP sum score after 12 months was 25 (SD 31.2, 95 % CI 13.1-36.9) for cobalt-chromium alloy and 44.4 (SD 32.3, 95 % CI 31.1-57.8) for zirconia. However, no statistically significant difference of the two materials on OHIP change or patient self-rating was detected. CONCLUSIONS: Although OHRQoL was improved by using both cobalt-chromium alloy and zirconia primary crowns for E-RDPs, post-treatment differences between the groups were not statistically significant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Zirconia E-RDPs enhance OHRQoL. However, zirconia primary crowns do not outperform cobalt-chromium alloy crowns regarding patient satisfaction-despite their tooth-like color.

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 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.

Clinical performance of conical and electroplated telescopic double crown-retained partial dentures: a randomized clinical study.

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.

Association between patient satisfaction with complete dentures and oral health-related quality of life: two-year longitudinal assessment.

The objective was to evaluate the development of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients with complete dentures and the association between OHRQoL and patient satisfaction. Fifty-two patients (mean age, 66.3, 48.1% male) received dentures in at least one jaw. The analysis was conducted on participants with dentures in both jaws (CD-Both; n = 22) or in the upper jaw only (CD-Max; n = 28). Data were collected 4 weeks, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years after insertion. OHRQoL was measured by use of the OHIP-EDENT. Self-rated patient satisfaction was assessed on a scale of 0-10. To prove the hypothesis that patient satisfaction would be a meaningful predictor of OHRQoL, and not vice versa, multilevel analysis and cross-lagged correlation analysis were performed for both groups separately. OHRQoL improved from 22.9 (SD, 20.7) to 12.1 (SD, 14.5) for CD-Both and from 20.3 (SD, 17.2) to 14.7 (SD, 15.1) for CD-Max. Multilevel analysis revealed that patient satisfaction and OHRQoL were significantly associated (p < 0.0001) for both groups. Differences between the groups were found with regard to the effect of time after insertion and the interaction between time and satisfaction with OHRQoL which were significant only for the group CD-Both; however, no evidence was found for the causality of this association in the cross-lagged analysis for both groups (ZPF test, p > 0.016). Patient satisfaction and OHRQoL were associated for wearers of complete dentures. Within the limitations of the study, however, the causality that patient satisfaction predicts OHRQoL, and not vice versa, could not be proven.