Shortened dental arch and prosthetic effect on oral health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between two tooth replacement strategies—the shortened dental arch (SDA) concept and conventional treatment with removable partial dental prosthesis (RPDP) or implant-supported fixed partial dental prosthesis (IFPDP) —for distal extension of edentulous space in the posterior area. We retrieved eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs published between 1980 and November 2016 retrieved from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary outcome was OHRQoL evaluated using validated questionnaires. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the articles, evaluated the risk of bias, and determined the standardised weighted mean difference (SWMD) in OHRQoL scores between the two strategies using a random effects model. Two RCTs and one non-RCT involving 516 participants were included in this review. All studies employed the oral health impact profile (OHIP) for evaluation of OHRQoL. There was no statistically significant difference in OHIP summary scores between SDA and RPDP at 6 (SWMD=0.24) or 12 (SWMD=0.40) months posttreatment. Only one non-RCT had reported higher OHRQoL with IFPDP than with SDA; however, because of the small sample size, there was no significant difference in OHIP summary scores between the two strategies at 6 (SWMD= -0.59) or 12 (SWMD= -0.67) months posttreatment. In terms of OHRQoL in partially dentate patients, the SDA concept appears to be as feasible as RPDP restoration. Further clinical trials are required to clarify the effect of IFPDP restoration on OHRQoL.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

http://ift.tt/2norEGO