Cargando…

Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the impact of different patient-related factors was analyzed as influencing factors on the survival probability of de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zierden, Karina, Wöstmann, Juliane, Wöstmann, Bernd, Rehmann, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9708759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35976496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04673-w
_version_ 1784841008641474560
author Zierden, Karina
Wöstmann, Juliane
Wöstmann, Bernd
Rehmann, Peter
author_facet Zierden, Karina
Wöstmann, Juliane
Wöstmann, Bernd
Rehmann, Peter
author_sort Zierden, Karina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the impact of different patient-related factors was analyzed as influencing factors on the survival probability of dental prosthesis using Kaplan–Meier estimate. For analysis, the dental prosthesis was divided into groups: group 1 (fixed dental prosthesis), group 2 (removable dental prosthesis), group 3 (implant-supported dental prosthesis), and group 4 (prostheses anchored using wrought wire clasps and obturators). The incidental aftercare measures were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-nine restorations were observed (mean observation: 2.7 ± 3.0 years, max.14.8 years) out of which 49 (17.6%) had to be replaced during the observation. After 5 years, 100% of group 1 restorations, 79.9% of group 2 restorations, 91.4% of group 3 restorations, and 30% of group 4 restorations were still functional. Four hundred eighty-eight dental implants were observed, of which 77 (15.8%) failed. CONCLUSIONS: Groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations showed good survival times after 5 years in function, whereas group 4 presented the worst survival times. Group 2 restorations showed the highest amount of necessary aftercare measures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current investigation shows that groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations should be preferred in the prosthetic treatment planning of patients with head and neck tumors. A treatment with group 4 restorations should only be considered if no other prosthetic treatment is possible or as temporary treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9708759
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97087592022-12-01 Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study Zierden, Karina Wöstmann, Juliane Wöstmann, Bernd Rehmann, Peter Clin Oral Investig Original Article OBJECTIVES: To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the impact of different patient-related factors was analyzed as influencing factors on the survival probability of dental prosthesis using Kaplan–Meier estimate. For analysis, the dental prosthesis was divided into groups: group 1 (fixed dental prosthesis), group 2 (removable dental prosthesis), group 3 (implant-supported dental prosthesis), and group 4 (prostheses anchored using wrought wire clasps and obturators). The incidental aftercare measures were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-nine restorations were observed (mean observation: 2.7 ± 3.0 years, max.14.8 years) out of which 49 (17.6%) had to be replaced during the observation. After 5 years, 100% of group 1 restorations, 79.9% of group 2 restorations, 91.4% of group 3 restorations, and 30% of group 4 restorations were still functional. Four hundred eighty-eight dental implants were observed, of which 77 (15.8%) failed. CONCLUSIONS: Groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations showed good survival times after 5 years in function, whereas group 4 presented the worst survival times. Group 2 restorations showed the highest amount of necessary aftercare measures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current investigation shows that groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations should be preferred in the prosthetic treatment planning of patients with head and neck tumors. A treatment with group 4 restorations should only be considered if no other prosthetic treatment is possible or as temporary treatment. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-08-17 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9708759/ /pubmed/35976496 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04673-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Zierden, Karina
Wöstmann, Juliane
Wöstmann, Bernd
Rehmann, Peter
Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study
title Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study
title_full Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study
title_short Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study
title_sort clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9708759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35976496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04673-w
work_keys_str_mv AT zierdenkarina clinicalperformanceofdifferenttypesofdentalprosthesisinpatientswithheadandnecktumorsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT wostmannjuliane clinicalperformanceofdifferenttypesofdentalprosthesisinpatientswithheadandnecktumorsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT wostmannbernd clinicalperformanceofdifferenttypesofdentalprosthesisinpatientswithheadandnecktumorsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT rehmannpeter clinicalperformanceofdifferenttypesofdentalprosthesisinpatientswithheadandnecktumorsaretrospectivecohortstudy