Clinical performance of non-precious metal double crowns with friction pins in severely reduced dentitions

Abstract

Objectives Several in vitro studies have investigated the retention of double crowns with friction pins (DCP); however, clinical data on their long-term success have not been reported. We sought to evaluate the 5-year survival rate of DCPs in patients with severely reduced dentition (SRD) and not severely reduced dentition (NSRD). Materials and methods A total of 158 patients were treated with 182 dentures on 520 abutment teeth between 2006 and 2016. The SRD group included 144 dentures that had been inserted on 314 abutment teeth. We evaluated the influence of age, sex, jaw, number, tooth vitality, and abutment teeth localization (according to Steffel's classification) on the 60-month survival rates of dentures and abutment teeth using the Kaplan-Meier estimator, logrank test, and Cox regression. Results The cumulative 60-month survival rate was 84.3% (CI 77.1-91.5%) for all dentures; however, the survival rate in the SRD group (80.3%; CI 71.5-89.1%) was significantly lower than in the NSRD group (100%; p = 0.04). Dentures classified in Steffel's class A had the lowest survival rate (51.5%; CI 30.9-72.1%). Number, location, and vitality of the abutment teeth had a significant impact on survival rate. Conclusions DCP dentures showed comparable clinical long-term success to double crown systems that have been previously reported in the literature. The number, localization, and vitality of abutment teeth had the greatest influence on the survival rates of denture and abutment teeth. Clinical relevance DCP dentures have an acceptable 5-year survival rate. Clinical treatment planning must take into account key factors associated with the prognosis of the abutment teeth.

Double‐Crown Prosthesis Retention Using Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK): An In Vitro Study

“…Another article reported different classifications of the remaining tooth position and its influence on the survival rate of the abutment teeth. 24 Also, the technical complication of loosening from friction was mentioned. The present in vitro study assessed single teeth.…”

“…However, prosthetic tooth wear (6.3%) was the third most common reason for the failure of double‐crown prostheses. Another article reported different classifications of the remaining tooth position and its influence on the survival rate of the abutment teeth 24 . Also, the technical complication of loosening from friction was mentioned.…”

Maxillary overdenture on three implants retained by low‐profile stud attachments – A prospective cohort study

“…The anterior–posterior spread of the implants was maximised to create the largest possible triangular support area. Determining the support zone is essential when planning for or addressing the prognosis of telescopic prostheses on very few remaining teeth 24,25 . The best prognosis is obtained when the support zone is triangular or quadrangular, that is corresponding to class E and class F, respectively, in the classification system intended to design removable partial prostheses 26 .…”

“…Determining the support zone is essential when planning for or addressing the prognosis of telescopic prostheses on very few remaining teeth. 24 , 25 The best prognosis is obtained when the support zone is triangular or quadrangular, that is corresponding to class E and class F, respectively, in the classification system intended to design removable partial prostheses. 26 Four individual attachments with a good anterior–posterior spread create a quadrangular support zone.…”

Non-Precious Metal Alloy Double Crown-Retained Removable Partial Dentures: A Cross-Sectional In Vivo Investigation

“…Particularly, non-precious alloys have been used for the fabrication of primary and secondary crowns for several years; yet, little is known about the related clinical outcomes. Recently published retrospective studies on the clinical outcomes of non-precious alloy telescopic crown-retained RPDs demonstrated clinically acceptable results [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. However, none of the studies reported on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).…”