A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Periodontal health in the shortened dental arch. | LitMetric

Periodontal health in the shortened dental arch.

Evid Based Dent

Academic Clinical Fellow/Honorary Speciality Trainee, Newcastle Dental Hospital, UK.

Published: January 2021

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41432-021-0193-zDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sda group
20
rpd group
12
group sda
12
shortened dental
8
dental arch
8
sda
8
group
8
per-protocol analysis
8
rpd
6
periodontal health
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!