IADR Abstract Archives
An RCT Comparing Molar Two- and Three-unit RBBs
Objectives: Cantilevered two-unit (CL2), resin-bonded bridges (RBBs) are durable and successful prostheses for missing anterior and premolar teeth. However, the use of CL2 designs for molar-sized edentulous spans goes against previous principles of prosthodontic bridge design. These results update interim findings of a randomized-controlled trial (Clinicaltrial.gov NCT02239718) comparing RBBs of FM3 and CL2 designs for missing molar-sized spans (8-10 mm).
Methods: Patients who had one or more missing molar spans that met the inclusion/extrusion criteria (IRB: UW14-233) were recruited and randomized (ratio 1:1) into CL2 or FM3 group. Patients were examined by independent assessors at different time intervals baseline, 1-, 6-, 12- and 24-month after cementation. Retention of the prosthesis was evaluated as well as patient’s satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life were evaluated by 14-item questionnaire and OHIP-49 respectively.
Results: Seventy-six patients were enrolled and ninety-five RBBs were randomized into forty-five CL2 and fifty FM3 designs. Sixty seven patients were reviewed at 1-month, thirty-five at 6-months, 30 at 12-month and 10 at 24-months. The majority of the prostheses were provided by undergraduate dental students. Two CL2 and one FM3 RBBs debonded resulting in retention rate of 95.6% and 98.0%. They were all rebonded. Patient reported outcome evaluations and OHIP were analysed by t-test for the two groups and no differences were observed (P> 0.05) and no adverse outcomes were reported such as tipping or discomfort.
Conclusions: The most recent data of this study show that CL2 RBBs can be successfully placed for single molar spans with no observable complications. Longer term data is being collected.
Grant UGC: 17100314
Methods: Patients who had one or more missing molar spans that met the inclusion/extrusion criteria (IRB: UW14-233) were recruited and randomized (ratio 1:1) into CL2 or FM3 group. Patients were examined by independent assessors at different time intervals baseline, 1-, 6-, 12- and 24-month after cementation. Retention of the prosthesis was evaluated as well as patient’s satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life were evaluated by 14-item questionnaire and OHIP-49 respectively.
Results: Seventy-six patients were enrolled and ninety-five RBBs were randomized into forty-five CL2 and fifty FM3 designs. Sixty seven patients were reviewed at 1-month, thirty-five at 6-months, 30 at 12-month and 10 at 24-months. The majority of the prostheses were provided by undergraduate dental students. Two CL2 and one FM3 RBBs debonded resulting in retention rate of 95.6% and 98.0%. They were all rebonded. Patient reported outcome evaluations and OHIP were analysed by t-test for the two groups and no differences were observed (P> 0.05) and no adverse outcomes were reported such as tipping or discomfort.
Conclusions: The most recent data of this study show that CL2 RBBs can be successfully placed for single molar spans with no observable complications. Longer term data is being collected.
Grant UGC: 17100314