Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition - The Cochrane Library - Abt - Wiley Online Library from LOGIN Enter e-mail address Enter password REMEMBER ME > > > > DATABASE TOOLS DATABASE MENU FIND ARTICLES OTHER RESOURCES Intervention Review You have full text access to this content Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition Elliot Abt 1,* , Alan B Carr 2 , Helen V Worthington 3 Editorial Group: Published Online: 15 FEB 2012 Assessed as up-to-date: 21 MAR 2011 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003814.pub2 Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration.
Publication History Publication Status: New Published Online: 15 FEB 2012 SEARCH ARTICLE TOOLS Abstract Abstract Background Management of individuals presenting with partial loss of teeth is a common task for dentists.
Outcomes important to the management of missing teeth in the partially absent dentition should be systematically summarized.
This review recognizes both the challenges associated with such a summarization and the critical nature of the information for patients.
Objectives To assess the effects of different prostheses for the treatment of partially absent dentition in terms of the following outcomes: long-term success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction.
Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different methods (including the design and materials used) of treating partial edentulism, with clinically relevant outcomes, were included in this review.
Trials reporting only surrogate outcomes, such as plaque accumulation or gingival volume, were excluded from this review.
Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently carried out the screening of eligible studies, assessment of dimensions of quality of trials, and data extraction.
Results were expressed as mean differences for continuous data, risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for time-to-event data.
Twenty-four per cent of these were assessed as being at high risk of bias and the remainder were at unclear risk of bias.
There was insufficient evidence to determine whether one type of removable dental prosthesis (RDP) was better or worse than another.